Commons Sitting of 15 March 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 66 AND 67 NOT COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders 66 and 67 have not been complied with, viz.:—Cork City Railways and Works Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Hampstead Garden Suburb Bill (by Order); Read a second time, and committed.
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill (by Order); Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next (Evening Sitting).
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, "To empower the London County Council to construct and work tramways in the counties of London and Middlesex; and to make street improvements and other works and acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  Middlesex County Council (Tramways) Bill, "For empowering the County Council of Middlesex to construct a tramway in the Edgware Road and to widen portions of that road; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

PETITION.
  SUTTON, SOUTHCOATES, AND DRYPOOL GAS BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING.)
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Bacup; Croston (two); Cuddesdon; Doctor Lane; Failsworth; Garstang (two); Hawick; Kirkham; Knaresdale; Salford; Skelton; Stoke Albany; Treales; Wesham; Whitechapel (two); and Yeaveley (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Lincoln, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to alter the constitution of the Dover Harbour Board." [Dover Harbour Board Bill] [Lords.]
  DOVER HARBOUR BOARD BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examinations of Petitions for Private Bills.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics, Part I., relating to Criminal Proceedings,
  1372
  Police, Coroners, Prisons, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and Criminal Lunatics, for England and Wales for 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3537 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MAGISTRATES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of Magistrates appointed in the different counties of Scotland, with their names, descriptions, and addresses, from the date of the last Return in 1893 to the present time."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
  PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
  Return ordered, "giving the quantities of Coal exported from each of the principal ports in the United Kingdom in every quarterly period since the imposition of the Coal Duty in 1901, at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s.; above 6s. but not exceeding 7s.; above 7s. but not exceeding 8s., and above 8s."—(Mr. David Thomas.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Church Tithes and Glebes.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give, by parishes and counties, any changes that may have occurred in the tithes, glebe, and properties of the Church of England in Wales since the issue of Parliamentary Paper, No. 240, session 1894, and any changes in the disposition of the revenue derived from those sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners about this matter. I find from them that the information contained in the Return of 1894 is still substantially correct, and that the fresh particulars for which the hon. Member asks would, in all probability, be so insignificant in

  1373
  amount as to be of little value, while to obtain them would be a task of considerable magnitude, which would take a long time to complete. In these circumstances I do not at present think there is sufficient justification for asking the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to undertake the very serious labour which would be involved.

  Appointment of Provincial Clerk-in-Charge at Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances the usual practice of inviting applications from the whole indoor staff, for the position of provincial clerk in charge at Belfast, was departed from on a recent occasion, when three men were selected to do this work; what special qualifications the men selected possessed; and why men with longer service and better qualifications were passed over.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is not the practice to invite applications from the staff for the duty of taking charge of vacant offices. I am assured that the three officers whose names were recently added to this list are not only fully competent to perform the duties, but were considered to be the most suitable of the eligible officers.

  Belfast Postmen's Duties.
  ME. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances the junior head postman at Belfast is retained permanently on a regular duty while his seniors, equally capable men, are compelled to rotate on irregular duties with irregular hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The arrangement has been adopted as that which appears to be the most convenient under the circumstances.

  Good Conduct Stripes for Post Office Night Messengers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the work and the rate of pay of adult night messengers, he will consider the advisability of granting them good conduct stripes
  1374
  similar to those which postmen are entitled to.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question has been carefully considered at various times; but, as I informed the hon. Member for West Nottingham on the 12th instant, it has not been thought desirable to extend the practice of granting good conduct stripes.

  Ecclesiastical Commission on Surveyor's, Architects and Legal Expenses.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk as Church Estates Commissioner whether he will give the main items of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' charges of management of estates for each of the financial years 1900 to 1905, both inclusive; and whether he will further give similar information with regard to the surveyors' and architects' charges for the same period.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, as Church Estates Commissioner whether he will give, under separate heads, the legal expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for each of the financial years 1900 to 1905, both inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Stuart-Wortley.) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners' accounts are published in a complete form every year in the Appendix to their Report, and in these appear the amounts of the several charges about which the hon. Member asks. The legal expenses, surveyors' charges, and architects' charges for the years 1890 to 1904 were further set out in the reply given to Mr. Stevenson's Question on the 9th March 1905.ߤ They are, however, again given or the years 1900 to 1905 in the following table of expenses, including charges of management, paid out of the Commissioners Common Fund. The total gross rental of estates belonging to the Commissioners for their common fund, and of Episcopal Permanent Estates managed by them, in respect of which these expenses are mainly incurred, is also given for the same years.

  Year ending 31st October.

  Charges of management.

  Surveyor's changes.

  Architects' charges.

  Legal expenses.

  Gross rental of estates.

  Agency.

  Expenses at audits.

  Sundry expenses.

  Bailiffs'salaries, etc.

  Receipt stamps, etc.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1900

  42,117

  10

  0

  1,566

  15

  11

  1,133

  18

  9

  929

  11

  7

  314

  8

  5

  7,164

  12

  11

  1,280

  10

  11

  6,576

  7

  1

  1,505,182

  12

  10

  1901

  42,492

  8

  6

  1,484

  15

  5

  1,406

  2

  7

  1,092

  0

  8

  439

  9

  0

  7,130

  2

  9

  1,148

  8

  3

  7,158

  19

  5

  1,549,561

  17

  9

  1902

  43,002

  1

  4

  1,442

  8

  2

  1,554

  15

  8

  1,168

  19

  8

  404

  9

  8

  8,208

  19

  3

  1,506

  19

  9

  10,136

  10

  0

  1,589,495

  9

  9

  1903

  43,266

  13

  4

  1,372

  16

  3

  2,075

  15

  0

  1,108

  4

  0

  355

  19

  10

  7,294

  7

  0

  1,256

  3

  6

  8,540

  10

  1

  1,585,847

  13

  1

  1904

  43,907

  13

  1

  1,404

  14

  3

  1,635

  15

  7

  1,199

  3

  9

  385

  18

  10

  8,464

  0

  10

  1,528

  3

  6

  7,498

  17

  5

  1,611,104

  4

  4

  1905

  44,763

  18

  10

  1,293

  0

  4

  1,517

  8

  8

  1,149

  19

  6

  290

  5

  9

  7,273

  11

  0

  1,607

  7

  0

  8,040

  7

  9

  1,639,837

  6

  11

  Coastguards Royal Marines—Number of Commission Officers and Musicians.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the reason for the increase in the number of commissioned officers of coastguard, and of commissioned officers and musicians of Royal Marines in Estimates, which show a reduction in the numbers of the coastguard and of the Royal Marines.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Owing to the abolition of the cruiser sailing service, a certain number of commissioned chief officers became redundant and are being absorbed into coastguard service ashore in lieu of chief officers of warrant rank. The increase, therefore, is only apparent, as the readjustments have reduced the total number of officers of the shore service and the cruiser service combined by twelve. There is no change in the total number of commissioned officers of the Royal Marines. The increase of two in the number under Vote 1 is counter-balanced by a corresponding decrease in the numbers under other Votes. The increase in the number of musicians, Royal Marines, is due (1) to naval band ratings being replaced by Marine bandsmen under the new scheme; and (2) to the numbers for 1906–7 including bank ranks, buglers and musicians, whereas the numbers for the previous year included buglers and certain musicians only, the band ranks and the rest of the musicians having been included in the rank and file numbers as explained in note B on page 20 of the Navy Estimates for 1906–7.

  Years.

  United Kingdom.

  Germany.

  Average Price of English wheat. Per Quarter.

  Average Import Price of Wheat. Per Quarter.

  Average Price of Wheat at Berlin. Per Quarter.

  Average Import Price of Wheat. Per Quarter.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1901

  26

  9

  28

  4

  35

  8

  28

  10

  1902

  28

  1

  18

  7

  35

  6

  18

  6

  1903

  26

  9

  29

  1

  35

  1

  28

  6

  1904

  28

  4

  30

  0

  38

  0

  30

  3

  1905

  29

  8

  31

  0

  38

  1

  30

  11

  The Berlin price stated may include forms about one-third of the German ome imported wheat. Imported wheat I supply.

  Grant of Land in Rhodesia to Sir John Willoughby.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the inclusive concession to Sir John Willoughby of 200 square miles of diamondiferous territory in Central Rhodesia; whether any petition of protest on the subject has been received from the white inhabitants of Central Rhodesia; and if the Government intend to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has just received a telegram from a committee of the inhabitants of Gwelo through the High Commissioner for South Africa, but the information which it contains is not sufficient to enable him to form an opinion on the matter. It will be necessary to await the Report of the High Commissioner before further considering the matter.

  Prices of Wheat in Germany and the United Kingdom.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the average prices of home-grown and imported wheat were respectively in Germany during the five years ending December 31st, 1905; and what were respectively the average prices of home-grown and imported wheat in the United Kingdom during a similar period.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following gives the information asked for so far as it is available:—
  forms about one-third of the German supply.

  Royal Commissions, Committees, etc.— Cost and Number.
  MR. J. F. MASON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give a list of the Royal Commissions, Select Committees, Joint Committees, and Departmental Committees appointed and announced by the Government; and what is the estimated cost of these inquiries during 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The notice given me by the hon. Member has not been sufficient to enable me to prepare a complete Answer; but, so far as I am aware, the Afforestation and Foreshore Commission is the only one which has been announced, but has not yet been appointed by the Government. The names of most of the Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees at present appointed will be found in the Estimate for Temporary Commissions, Vote 1, of Class VII., in the Civil Service Estimates for 1906–7. A few, however, have been omitted because the expenditure likely to be incurred by them in 1906–7 appeared to be trifling, if anything at all. These are the War Stores and Motor Cars Commissions, the Small Holdings, Agricultural Settlements, Expenditure on Education, and Royal Hibernian Academy Committees. The cost of the Commissions and Committees not shown in the Estimate is included in the margin of £12,659 for contingencies, provided under Subhead L. The Select Committees which have been appointed to date are, so far as I am aware, Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, House of Commons Procedure, Butter, Post Office Employés, Police and Sanitary, Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, Public Petitions, Selection, and Public Accounts Committees, the last four being sessional. The cost of these Select Committees is borne on the House of Commons Vote, but it has not been the practice to estimate for them specifically. With regard to that part of the Question which deals with Departmental Committees, I have no information to give the hon. Member, as these Committees may be appointed by the Department concerned without the knowledge of the Treasury, and their expenses are borne on the Department's own Vote.

  Irish Expenditure.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the custom in estimating the amount of the expenditure upon Imperial services in Ireland, to charge such expenditure against the Irish Revenue Account; and whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Financial Relations reported that no portion of the Imperial expenditure could, in their view, be regarded as local, or as a set-off to excessive taxation (page 25 of Report), and that to make a charge for Irish purposes, would be to do what the constitution does not sanction (page 103); and, if so, will he state by what authority such a custom is sanctioned, and at what date such a custom began.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In the Financial Relations Returns, Ireland is not charged with the expenditure on any Imperial service. If the hon. Member will refer to the Annual Returns, he will find that the total expenditure is classified therein under the four heads of "English Services," "Scottish Services," 'Irish Services," and "General Services." The last-mentioned heading includes the charges for the National Debt, the Army and Navy, the Diplomatic, Consular, and Colonial services, and other services which may be called "Imperial," in the sense that they are carried on for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. No part of that expenditure is set down against Ireland. The passages which the hon. Member quotes from the Report of the Financial Relations Commission do not occur in the General Report, which was signed by eleven of the thirteen members, but in two Supplementary Reports, one of which was signed by five, and the other by three of the members. It would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept the view of those Members that, in considering the burden of taxation upon Ireland, no regard is to be paid to the amount of the charge for purely Irish services, which is defrayed out of State Revenues. The Act of Union contemplated that the total expenditure of the United Kingdom should be "defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country," subject only to such particular abatements and exemptions in Ireland or Scotland as circumstances

  1381
  might require. That is the system now in force. No constitutional rule is infringed if, in considering the financial position of Ireland, we take account of the fact that, since the date of the Union, it has become the practice to devote large sums out of the Revenues raised by the State to the assistance of the local authorities, to contributions to the cost of education, and the other services of local application; and that the sums thus applied in the three countries are not in the same proportions as their contributions to Revenue. That method has been followed with the sanction of this House since 1890, when a Select Committee was appointed to consider the equity of the financial relations of the three countries with regard, not only to their contributions to Revenue, but also to their shares in expenditure.

  Intimidation of Michael Fynn at Athenry.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday March 4th threatening notices, couched in violent language, and bearing drawings of coffins and rifles, were found posted up opposite the Roman Catholic church at Athenry; and, seeing that these notices contained threats against Michael Fynn, a small farmer, who recently resumed the holding of a grazing farm at Rockmore, will he say what steps are being taken to afford this man protection from violence.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The local police are aware that a rumour to the effect stated in the Question has been current at Athenry, but they have reason to believe that no such notice as is mentioned was found.

  Lislea National School Manager.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rules of the National Commissioners of Education, with regard to the patronage and management of national schools, stipulate that a person to be eligible for the position of local manager of a school must reside within a convenient distance of the school, and must undertake to visit the school frequently, and whether such duties can be discharged satisfactorily by
  1382
  deputy; whether the appointment of the Rev. Mr. Simpson, as manager of the Lislea national school, is in conformity with this rule; and whether he will give the name of the local gentleman who visits the school on Mr. Simpson's behalf.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce) The Rule to which the hon. Member refers is as follows:—Rule 40 (E).—A person to be eligible for the position of local manager of a school must be either a clergyman or other person of good position in society, must reside within a convenient distance from the school, and must undertake to visit the school frequently, and to check and certify the correctness of the school returns furnished to the office of National Education. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Rev. Mr. Simpson does not reside in the locality of the school; but that their chief inspector, after holding an inquiry in the matter, recommended Mr. Simpson as the most suitable person to hold the temporary management, in view of the local differences upon the subject which existed. The local gentlemen who occasionally visits the school in supplement to the visits of Mr. Simpson is Mr. S. Wilson, J.P. I have already stated that any question as to the observance by the Commissioners of their own rules is a matter for their own decision. The Commissioners inform me that they have no present intention of upsetting the arrangements by which the Rev. Mr. Simpson is recognised as temporary manager pending the appointment of a successor to the Rev. Mr. Ingram, the former manager.

  Sale of Irish Land Report.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is proposed to issue another Report showing the progress made by the Estates Commissioners in connection with sales, etc., under the Land Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The next Report of the Estates Commissioners will be for the year ending 31st instant, and the Commissioners inform me that they will present it as soon as possible after that date.

  Applications of Tenants on the Morrogh Bernard Estates, County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners for dealing with the applications of the evicted tenants on the Morrogh Bernard estate, county Kerry; and whether any application for the sale of this estate has yet been made to the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application for the sale of this estate was lodged with them on January 2nd, 1906, and that they are now in communication with the vendor upon the subject of the restoration of the evicted tenants, from ten of whom applications for reinstatement have been received.

  Sale of the Lauder Property at Clonfan-lough, King's County.
  MR. REDDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the advertised sale of Cruise's farms on the Lauder property at Clonfanlough, King's County; whether he is aware that Clonfanlough is a congested area; and whether, under the circumstances, he will suggest to the Estates Commissioners the advisability of purchasing these lands with a view to increasing the size of the uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have issued to the Land Judge a request, under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, with a view to their purchasing the estate referred to. The Commissioners have informed the solicitor in charge of the proceedings for sale that, in the event of their purchasing the estate, they will expect that the lands now occupied by Mr. Cruise shall be included in the purchase as untenanted lands.

  Prosecution of three Cavan Farmers.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a Motion and order for attachment against three Cavan farmers in the Land Judges' Court in Dublin on Friday last; whether the matters complained of were investigated
  1384
  before the ordinary tribunal; and whether, seeing that though counsel pressed for leave to appeal this was refused; and that, as the alleged offences were of a criminal nature, the constitutional right to trial by jury was denied these men, will legislation be introduced to safeguard the public should occasion again arise.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The order for attachment in this case was made by the learned Judge in the exercise of the jurisdiction inherent in him, and I have no power to interfere in the matter. The matters complained of were not, so far as I know, investigated before any other tribunal. I have seen a newspaper report of the case, from which it appears that the learned Judge declined to put a stay upon the order for attachment on the ground that, as there was no appeal from his decision in such a case, there was no reason for the stay. I understand that the law in these respects is the same in England as in Ireland.

  Irish Agricultural Department Inquiry.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state upon whose recommendation the names of the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Department were selected; whether there is any representative of the agricultual, industrial, or trading interests in Ireland upon the Committee; and if the scope of the inquiry will include the grievances of the staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The members of the Committee were selected by the Irish Government from their personal knowledge, with the exception of the member from Canada, who was suggested by the Government of the Dominion in response to a request. The two Irish members of the Committee are thoroughly acquainted with the agricultural, industrial, and trading interests of Ireland. The inquiry was never intended to be directed toward the grievances of individuals.

  Evicted Tenants on the Lewis Estate at Balinagar.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the of number of evicted tenants on the Lewis

  1385
  estate, Balinagar, Loughrea; how many of them have been reinstated in their old holdings through the agency of the Land Act, 1903; and what steps do the Government propose to take with a view of reinstating them in their old homes.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received twenty-one applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants on this estate. None of these have been reinstated. The Commissioners referred the applications to an inspector, with the view of ascertaining whether an arrangement for reinstatement could be arrived at with the owner, but the negotiations have so far failed. The claims of the evicted tenants will be further considered, in the event of untenanted land in the locality being acquired by the Commissioners.

  The Case of P. M'Donnell at Gurteenreeny, County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the eviction of Philip O'Donnell from his farm at Gurteenreeny, Kilcooley, county Tipperary, which is at present occupied by a planter named Thomas Pratt; and will he recommend to the Commissioners the desirability of approaching the landlord, Admiral Poe, with a view to securing the reinstatement of M'Donnell in his former holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners will, in pursuance of the recent regulations, make inquiries in due course into the case of Philip McDonnell, from whom an application for reinstatement has been received.

  Fixing of Second Term Rents in County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHATJGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sub-Commission, consisting of Messrs. Croasdale and Crean, when fixing second-term rents in the county of Limerick, since the Land Act, 1903, in some cases raised the rents and in other cases fixed the rents higher than the landlord's valuer; if he can say on
  1386
  what grounds such decisions were arrived at; whether he can also say why the Commissioners Falkiner and Baggot were removed from this county; and will he draw a comparison between the rents fixed by them and Messrs. Crean and Croasdale.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that, since the passing of the Act of 1903, fair rents have been fixed by the sub-Commission Courts in county Limerick in 504 cases. In two only of these cases were the rents fixed for a second term higher than the first-term rents. In 34 cases the former rents were confirmed, and in the remaining 468 cases the former rents were reduced. The evidence and estimates of value given in fair rent cases on behalf of the landlords and tenants, respectively, are not part of the official records of such cases. The concluding inquiries of the question refer to matters upon which the Land Commission have not given me any information, and upon which I am not in a position to express any opinion. They are not under my jurisdiction. The law provides the right of appeal from the decisions of sub-Commission Courts, as I have already repeatedly pointed out.

  Army—Regulations for wearing plain Clothes.
  MR. RENDALL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that under the Army Council's order permitting plain clothes to be worn by non-commissioned officers and well-conducted men, there is inserted a proviso that such plain clothes must not be kept in barracks and must not be worn either on quitting or returning to the soldier's station; whether he is aware that this proviso compels men to leave and return to barracks in uniform, to go long distances to their homes to change their clothes, taking with them materials for pipeclaying and polishing of buttons, and in the case of unmarried men to hire accommodation for their plain clothes; and whether he will consider the desirability of removing the proviso and permitting well-conducted men to quit and return to barracks in plain clothes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The proviso that plain clothes are not to be kept in barracks has been relaxed in

  1387
  favour of non-commissioned officers not below the rank of sergeant. The proviso that plain clothes must not be worn by a soldier, either on quitting or returning to his station will be omitted from the King's Regulations now in course of revision. In view, however, of the fact that railway companies, in spite of repeated solicitation, make the wearing of uniform a condition upon which cheap tickets are issued to soldiers proceeding on pass or furlough, this concession is of little value.

  War Office Contracts and the Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Fair Wages and Factory Clauses are inserted in all Government contracts; whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the evasion of the clauses on the part of some contractors; and, if so, whether any penalty has been inflicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The fair wages clause is inserted in practically all War Office contracts, and the factory clause in all contracts aflecting trades where sub-letting contrary to the recognised custom of the trade is believed to exist. All cases of alleged evasion are closely investigated, and such action is taken as is held to be appropriate to the particular case in question.

  Appointment of Higher Division Clerks at the War Office.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, pending a decision being arrived at, it is proposed to post to the War Office in the ordinary manner gentlemen who passed the examination of clerkships in the higher division of the Civil Service; or whether all appointments are suspended.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) On an establishment of seventeen higher division clerks approved by the Treasury in 1904 there are now six vacancies. All appointments to these vacancies have been suspended under instructions from the Treasury, pending consideration of the
  1388
  question involved. I expect that a decision will be come to shortly.

  Regimental and District Commands.
  MR. CARLILE: To ask the Secretary of State for War with reference to the reorganisation of military commands and staff in the United Kingdom, as set forth in the special Army order of January 6th, 1905, whether the general officers commanding-in-chief furnished a Report on the working of the system; if so, what is the general opinion expressed therein regarding the grouping of the regimental districts and the establishing of infantry record offices; and will the Reports be placed upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Reports were furnished by general officers commanding-in-chief on the matters alluded to. The information contained in them is confidential, and I am not, therefore, in a position either to give the hon. Member the information he requires or to lay the Reports upon the Table.

  Naval Cadetships for Colonials.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent cadetships in His Majesty's naval forces are reserved for the sons of Colonists; and whether reciprocally cadetships in the forces maintained by any of the self-governing Colonies are reserved for the sons of Englishmen, or Scotchmen, or Irishmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Under the agreements come to at the Colonial Conference in 1902, and published in the Blue-book [Cd. 1299] of that year, appointments to naval cadetships are, subject to the candidates passing the prescribed physical and educational tests, placed at the disposal of the Secretary of State annually for the following Colonies:—Australia, eight; New Zealand, two; The Cape, two; Natal, one. Besides these thirteen, the Secretary of State may allot two more to boys belonging to Colonies which do not, like these, make a contribution to the Imperial Navy. There are no appointments in the Colonial naval forces analogous to cadetships in the Imperial Navy.

  Engine Boom Artificers in Charge of Machinery.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of vessels of 200 tons and above in which engine-room artificers, or higher grades promoted therefrom, are in sole charge of the machinery; whether, on a larger number of ships, these men are placed in watch-keeping charge of one engine-room; and whether it is contemplated to replace them in such positions by men selected from the stokers at about the age of twenty-eight years, to be trained for about three years as watch-keepers and mechanicians.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The number of vessels is eighty-four. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. It is contemplated that these artificers, who are in charge of one engine-room, may be replaced by mechanicians, subject to these men, who will be selected from leading stokers, qualifying for this work under the new rules on the point of being issued.

  Naval Cadets.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of cadets under the old scheme, who after examination passed into H.M.S. "Britannia," Dartmouth, in July 1903, November 1903, and March 1904; the number of cadets admitted in July 1903, November 1903, and March 1904, who up to the present date have been dismissed as unfit for the service; also similar information with reference to the new scheme for cadets at the Royal Naval College, Osborne.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) At Osborne all the cadets are entered strictly on probation and a proportion of them are regularly withdrawn, principally at the end of their first year. Of the total 222 boys entered between July 1903 and May 1904, twenty-five have been thus withdrawn through not making sufficient progress with their work. Two others have been discharged as physically unfit and five for misconduct. In the "Britannia" training ship, where this system of probation did not obtain, seventy cadets passed in in July 1903, sixty in November 1903, and sixty-one in March 1904. One of these boys was discharged
  1390
  for failing to pass the final examination, and one more for being physically unfit.

  English and Irish Postal Officials,
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many postmasters and secretaries and superior officers have been imported into Ireland from Great Britain; and how many Irish officials have been promoted to similar positions in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I deprecate the comparison implied in the hon. Member's Question, since it suggests a separation, which fortunately does not exist between the Post Office service in Great Britain and Ireland. I find that in the years 1904 and 1905 seven officers employed in Great Britain were appointed to postmasterships in Ireland, and five officers employed in Ireland were appointed to postmasterships in Great Britain.

  Irish Postal Officials and the Irish Language.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in North and South Wales generally the postmasters are required to possess a knowledge of the Welsh language; whether he will introduce a similar rule respecting the Irish language in Ireland, especially regarding Irish-speaking districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In appointing postmasters to places in Wales, it is the practice to select candidates who have a knowledge of Welsh in cases where the district surveyor reports that such knowledge is necessary. The circumstances in Ireland are not altogether similar, and I have received no evidence that inconvenience has been caused by the present system.

  Herrings Landed in the Clyde Districts.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will lay upon the Table a statement showing the number of hundredweights of herrings landed in the Clyde districts collectively, and in Campbeltown, Inveraray,

  1391
  Rothesay, Greenock, and Ballantrae in-dividally, during the years 1889–1905, both inclusive.

  Year

  Campbeltown

  Inveraray.

  Rothesay.

  Greenock.

  Ballantrae.

  Total.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  cwts.

  1889

  118,912

  91,817

  29,011

  6,440

  36,281

  282,515

  1890

  147,987

  117,775

  34,569

  4,151

  67,606

  372,116

  1891

  144,641

  181,569

  36,582

  8,333

  50,211

  421,336

  1892

  160,153

  175,553

  11,637

  4,105

  19,750

  371,198

  1893

  247,975

  142,765

  15,206

  6,422

  7,196

  419,564

  1894

  256,712

  130,721

  7,135

  1,889

  9,288

  405,745

  1895

  102,942

  63,046

  8,542

  4,297

  12,379

  191,206

  1896

  53,341

  64,422

  8,822

  2,375

  8,038

  136,998

  1897

  85,028

  207,415

  12,608

  2,496

  7,235

  314,782

  1898

  90,624

  143,161

  8,492

  1,188

  5,597

  249,062

  1899

  111,644

  109,810

  13,888

  2,135

  10,211

  247,688

  1900

  141,950

  86,598

  7,964

  661

  19,154

  256,327

  1901

  109,721

  102,608

  6,417

  935

  36,926

  256,607

  1902

  133,058

  92,181

  91,171

  6,567

  28,130

  351,107

  1903

  104,167

  74,193

  99,262

  1,523

  7,853

  286,998

  1904

  45,251

  27,414

  26,389

  950

  5,090

  105,094

  1905

  74,060

  16,352

  6,084

  15,591

  15,679

  127,766

  Note.—The returns for Campbeltown include, for years 1890–5, large quantities of herrings captured off Islay and Jura, amounting in 1893 to 186,931 cwts.; 1894 to 177,383 cwts., and 1895 to 42,000 cwts., after which the Islay herring fishing was a complete failure.

  Cost of New Buildings being erected by Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk as Church Estates Commissioner, what is to be the total cost of the new buildings now being erected for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information required by the hon. Gentleman is as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. Stuart-Wortley) The total estimated cost of the buildings which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are erecting at Westminster is about £150,000. The offices of the Commissioners will not occupy more than about two-fifths of the whole, and the residue is arranged for letting, and is estimated to produce rents amounting to not less than £6,000 per annum.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Licensed Premises.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, as Church Estates Commissioner

  1393
  whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will publish a Report, supplementary to the Annual Report, containing Returns showing a list of all places licensed for the sale of beer, wine, or spirits, on any of their estates, during the twelve months preceding October 31st, 1905; the dates on which the lease was granted or last renewed, and will expire; and a statement, whether or not the assent of the Commissioners was required to the license; a list of all leases granted by them during the same period; and a statement as to the insertion therein of a restrictive or prohibitive covenant as to the sale of beer, wine, or spirits; a list of the applications during that period for their leave to sell beer, wine, or spirits, and a statement as to the result of such application; a list of the places so licensed, and of beerhouses, which were suppressed by them during that period; and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will in future include similar Returns in their Annual Reports.
  (Answered by Mr. Stuart- Worthy.) The Commissioners are not prepared to add the suggested particulars to their Annual Report. The hon. Member was informed on the 8th inst.†See that for over twenty years the Commissioners' leases have contained covenants prohibiting the sale of intoxicants without their leave. The twelvemonth ending October 31st, 1905, is covered by that Answer. I shall be pleased to give the hon. Member information as to the case of any particular house as to which he may wish to inquire.

  Sale of a Tuberculous Cow by Farm Committee of Central London School District Managers.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has any official information showing that the Farm Committee of the Central London School District Managers sold a cow, admittedly affected with tuberculosis, for 50s.; and, if so, can he say whether the Committee took any steps to prevent the carcass of this cow from being disposed of as human food.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.)> I have made inquiry on this subject, and am informed that the facts are as stated in the Question, but that the cow was sold on the understanding that the carcass would not be disposed of for human consumption.

  Members of Alien Immigration Boards.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give a list of the names and addresses and occupations of the members of the different alien immigration boards; and whether he will also say on what system and by whose recommendation these gentlemen have been appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The members of the boards were appointed after consultation with the mayors of the various towns and other persons of representative position. The qualifications required by the Act, and the premise of my predecessor that labour should be represented on the panels from which the boards are formed, were explained, and it was requested that names of persons willing, and known in the locality as suitable to undertake the responsible duties imposed on the boards, might be furnished. It was on these recommendations that the members were originally appointed, while additions have been and can be made to their number from time to time. The question of publication is under my consideration.

  The Bankruptcy Laws.
  MR. RICHARDSON: To ask the the President of the Board of Trade if he will make the scope of the proposed Committee to consider certain amendments of the Bankruptcy Laws sufficiently wide, so that the Committee may be able to consider, not merely the discharge of bankrupts, but also the conduct of a bankrupt not having kept books, the conduct of a bankrupt afterwards trading in the name of his wife or of some other person, he not being discharged; the relation of deeds of assignment to bankruptcy, including the abuse of deeds now frequently given to questionable advertising trustees, the desirability of a limitation of the power of a dissentient creditor to upset a deed by bankruptcy within three months, the desirability of giving creditors and trustees the right of an application to the registrar of a county court to sanction or restrain direction, and the desirability of trustees in all cases giving security to the local registrar.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The reference which has already been approved

  1395
  by the Board of Trade deals not merely with the discharge of bankrupts, but also with a considerable portion of the subjects mentioned in the hon. Member's Question. I cannot now add to the reference.

  Construction of an Additional Chancery Court.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether plans have for some time been in existence, and approved by the Board of Works, for the construction of an additional Chancery Court at the Royal Courts of Justice; and if so, whether, having regard to the fact that there are now six judges of the Chancery Division and only five courts for them to sit in, it is proposed at an early day to provide the court required.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The plans referred to are in existence, having been prepared by the Office of Works some years ago. The late Attorney-General, in answer to a Question on May 8th, 1902, stated that he † believed any existing difficulties of accommodation might be solved by a re-arrangement of the judges' circuits.

  County Court—Extention of Procedure under the Bills of Exchange Act.
  MR. MACLEAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General, in view of the fact that, when the County Courts Act of 1903 (extending the common law jurisdiction to £100) was passed, it was omitted to provide that the procedure under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1855, should also be extended beyond the sum of £50 and up to £100, whether it is intended shortly to recommend His Majesty, by Order in Council, to extend the limit of £50 to £100 in cases where plaintiffs desire to sue in the county court upon a bill of exchange or promissory note under the said Act.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) I have referred the Question to the Lord-Chancellor, who will give the subject his consideration; but I am unable to hold out much prospect of the subject being dealt with this session.

  Alcohol for Industrial Purposes.
  MR. PEARCE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the increasing employment of alcohol in chemical industry, he will take steps, during the present session, to free British manufacturers using alcohol from the disadvantage they now suffer compared with their foreign competitors.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The matter is under consideration, and I hope to be able to introduce legislation at an early date.

  National Expenditure and the Controller and Auditor-General.
  MR. PAUL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the evidence taken and the Report made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, appointed in 1902; and whether he proposes to continue the policy of his predecessor by withholding from the Controller and Auditor-General such items of expenditure as the Government do not think it desirable that he should see.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have considered the Report of the National Expenditure Committee. As regards action upon the Committee's recommendations, I would refer my hon. friend to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury to the hon. Member for Clackmannan on the 1st instant.‡ It is not the intention, nor would it be in the power, of His Majesty's Government to withhold details of expenditure from the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under The Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1866, that officer is required to certify and to Report upon all accounts of issues from the Consolidated Fund or of expenditure out of voted moneys. Section 28 of the Act gives him the right of access to the books and other documents relating to the accounts of all accounting departments. As regards other forms of expenditure, the Treasury have the power, but are under no duty, to submit the details of the accounts in fit cases for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This is a power which is frequently exercised. But in the case of
  ‡see (4) Debates, clii., 1299.

  1397
  grants in aid to responsible bodies, especially bodies whose income is derived from various sources, such, e.g., as University Colleges or the Incorporated Law Society, it is often impracticable to adopt this course.

  Importation of Store Pigs from Ireland to Great Britain.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his atteniton has been called to the effect on the trade by the restrictions at present in force regarding the importation of store pigs from Ireland into Great Britain; and whether, in conjunction with the Board of Agriculture for Great Britain, he will ask the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to consider such modifications as may be safely introduced to enable greater facilities of movement.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce): The movement of store swine from Ireland into into Great Britain was prohibited by an order of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which came into operation in January, 1905. That order has recently been modified by a further order of the same Board, the effect of which was stated in my reply to a Question of the hon. Member for North Longford on the 7th instant.† When some further experience has been gained of the working of the new order, the Department of Agriculture in Ireland will be in a position to determine whether they can, with advantage, make representations to the English Board of Agriculture for a further relaxation of the restrictions.

  Discharge of Boylan at Rahan at the Instigation of Mr. E. H. Browne.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of a young man named Boylan, who was dismissed from his employment as engine driver in saw mills erected in the parish of Rahan, King's County, on the Charleville Estate, at the repeated written requests of the estate agent, Mr. Ernest H. Browne, who is also a magistrate; and whether, in view of the fact that, although Boylan was dismissed under this pressure by Mr.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 429.
  1398
  Browne, his manager had no fault to find with him and expressed indignation and regret at being compelled to give him notice, his only offence being that his father had been in dispute with Mr. Browne over a right of way, a dispute in which he personally had no share, the Irish Government will consider the expediency of continuing Mr. Browne in the commission of the peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who states that he has no information upon the matter referred to, which would seem to be one of private concern and quite unconnected with the magisterial office.

  Flooding of the Little Bray.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the floods which took place last year in Little Bray; whether he is aware that no steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the danger; and whether he can see his way to call the attention of the county council to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The county council of Wicklow have had this matter before them on more than one occasion, and the Local Government Board on 18th December last, in response to the council's application, sanctioned a loan of £3,500 for the purpose of making good the damage caused by the floods referred to. The county council have been advised that their powers do not enable them to deepen the river (a course suggested by their county surveyor), which might possibly be a safeguard against a recurrence of the danger.

  War Office—Suggested change of Personnel.
  MR. MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will shortly be in a position to inform the House of his decision in regard to the recommendation of Lord Esher's Committee, dated 26th February, 1904, that a change of personnel in the civil establishment in the War Office was of the greatest importance in the interests of the efficiency of the public service; and whether he is now considering the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to the conduct of

  1399
  departmental business by the Army Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question, I must remind the hon. Member that considerable changes were made in the personnel of the civil establishment by my predecessor. As regards the second part of the Question, I have been glad to read the testimony of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to the promptitude and thoroughness of the work in the War Office.

  The One-Man Range-Finder.
  MR. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to equip the cavalry, mounted infantry, and infantry with the one-man range-finder; and, if so, how soon such equipment will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A one-man range-finder is under consideration, and, as soon as a suitable instrument has been decided upon, the question of equipping the troops will be considered.

  Woolwich Qualifying Examination— Suggested Alteration of Dates.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of holding the qualifying examinations for Woolwich in July instead of, as at present, March and September, which are inconvenient for boys and parents.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The dates, March and September, have been fixed after careful consideration, in order that they may fit in most conveniently with the competitive examinations for the Royal Military College, and the Royal Military Academy, the Militia competitive examinations, the examinations for leaving certificate, and the periods of Militia training. While the Army Council are anxious to meet the convenience of boys and parents in every way possible, they do not see their way, at present, to making the alteration in the dates which the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

  Free Railway Tickets for Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the free travelling and postal facilities enjoyed by Members of the Canadian Parliament, he will consider the expediency of introducing similar advantages for the Members of this House.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) I am afraid that I cannot see my way to acting upon the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the grievances of the Indian traders in the Transvaal, which led to the refusal of the Indian Government to permit the recruiting of Indian coolies for work in the Transvaal, are the same grievances as those that formed the subject of complaint by the Government of Her late Majesty against the Government of the Transvaal Republic; and what steps have been taken to redress such grievances.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The main grievance which formed the subject of complaint against the Government of the Republic was their claim to limit the trading rights of British Indians in the country to locations only, which claim was upheld by their High Court in a test case in 1898. This constituted also the main grievance of the Indian Government when the question of employing Indian coolies on railway construction was under consideration in 1903. This grievance was redressed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal in May, 1904.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals were made by Lord Milner for conferring municipal rights upon British Indians resident in the Transvaal; why those proposals were abandoned by Lord Milner; and what

    1401
    steps have been taken in the matter by His Majesty's present advisers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will see on reference to page 15 of Code 2104, that in 1903, when the Municipalities Ordinance was introduced, the Transvaal Government proposed to extend the municipal franchise to aliens and also to coloured British subjects who could pass a certain educational test. This would have admitted British Indians to the franchise. The proposal was abandoned because the unofficial members of Council were unanimous against the clause, and it was asserted by the opponents of any form of native franchise that the proposal was a breach of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the conditions of surrender; no steps in the matter have been taken by His Majesty's present advisers.

    Transvaal Political Labour League and the New Constitution.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under - Secretary of 'State for the Colonies whether Lord Selborne has transmitted the amendments which the Transvaal Political Labour League, representing the organised workmen of the Rand, has suggested should be made in the constitution of the Transvaal, promulgated under date of March 31st, 1905; and whether it is proposed to lay Papers upon the Table containing these amendments.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has learnt from Lord Selborne that a despatch is on its way in regard to the views of the League. It is not proposed to lay further Papers at present on the subject of the constitution; but how to secure the effective representation of the working classes in Johannesburg is one of the matters which will certainly?engage the attention of the Secretary of State.

    Profits on the Transvaal Mines.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the profits of the mines during the year preceding, and also during the year succeeding, the introduction of Chinese; and also what was the revenue accruing to the Government from these mining profits during the year preceding, and also during
    1402
    the year succeeding, the introduction of Chinese.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The profits of mines for the year June, 1903, to June, 1904, amounted to £4,712,858, and the profits for the year June, 1904, to June, 1905, to £5,737,494. The profit tax brought in £343,014 and £415,628 in in the two years.

    Kaffir Troubles in Natal.
    MR. J. WARD.: I beg to ask the Under - Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Kaffirs in Natal are British subjects, and, if so, what rights they possess as such; whether he has any official information showing that the lands and property of a whole tribe were recently confiscated, without any form of trial before a legally-constituted tribunal; that the tribe are now menaced with starvation; and that the natives are often subjected to this method of procedure, as a means for inducing them to sell their labour at a low rate of wages.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State will make careful inquiry into the matters referred to by the hon. Member, and I hope to be able at no distant date to lay Papers on the Table dealing with the recent native troubles in Natal. But meanwhile I must remind the hon. Member that the situation in Natal has not yet ceased to be one of emergency to the whole white population, and that the colony itself is in the enjoyment of complete responsible self-government.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will steps be taken to see that the land reserved to the Kaffirs under the dominion of the Imperial Parliament is kept for them?
    MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

    Madeira.
    MR. HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any British residents in the Island of Madeira have been expropriated; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the circumstances under which such expropriation has taken place.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): No expropriation has taken place.

    British Criticisms of the Congo Administration.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an attack by the Minister for Belgium at Washington made against Englishmen who are criticising the administration of the Congo, on the ground that they are animated either by commercial or political greed; and to a statement of the Belgian consul at Chicago that the great rubber companies are behind this movement; and whether, in view of the character of the movement for Congo reform in England, he can take any steps to dissipate the impression which such statements may have created in the United States.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen the statements to which my hon. friend refers, but if they have been made as he states, they are quite untrue.

    The Congo Inquiry.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Papers promised to be laid upon the Table upon the administration of the Congo State will contain a copy of the Report of the recent Commission of Inquiry, and of such of the evidence produced before the Commissioners as may be in the possession of His Majesty's Government; and whether he can state when these Papers may be expected.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It seems unnecessary to reprint as a Parliamentary Paper the whole Report, which has already been published, and the only reports of evidence produced before the Commissioners which have reached His Majesty's Government have already appeared in the public Press. But copies of the Report of the Commission will be sent to the Library.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are you not going to ask for the evidence?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand the Congo Government are not publishing that. I will inquire, however.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: They came-very near to promising to publish it.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire.

    Princess Ena.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to give a grant from the public funds to Princess Ena of Battenberg on the occasion of her marriage to the King of Spain; and, if so, what opportunity, if any, will be given to discuss the same.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Before-this Question is answered, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is not against the-practice and rules of this House to put Questions concerning members of the Royal Family.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not know of any such practice. If there is any suggestion of a grant of money being made, I think there is no objection to such Questions being put.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): It is not proposed to make any grant from public funds.

    Wages of Government Contracts.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table an authorised copy of the statements made outside this House by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War on the policy of the Government in regard to wages in Government establishments, as that policy has not been fully explained in this House.
    MR. ASQUITH: In my opinion the policy of the Government has been fully and clearly stated in the House by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty. If the right hon. Gentleman desires further information, the question can be raised in Committee and on Report of Supply.
    MB. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty expressly disclaimed stating the policy of the Government and referred the House to the answers given by Ministers to deputations outside? Is this House to be dependent for information on questions of policy on outside information?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I raised this very precise point in debate, and up to the present moment have not received the information.
    MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps my right hon friend will repeat the Questions to the Ministers of the Departments concerned

    Cocoa Imports.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information which would account for the falling off in the imports of cocoa butter, from 1,331,000 lbs. in 1897 to 162,000 lbs. in 1904; whether any excise duty has been levied on this bye product in the United Kingdom corresponding to the 1d. per lb. import duty imposed as from August 7th, 1896; and, if not, will he take into consideration the possible protective character of the duty with a view to its early repeal.
    MR. ASQUITH: The imports of this article fluctuate very greatly, having fallen from 1,331,000 lbs. in 1897—a date subsequent to the imposition of the duty—to 493,000 lbs. in 1899, and rising in 1900 to 1,239,000. Since then there has been a decline until 1904, when there was again a slight increase. There are no statistics of the quantity imported before the duty was imposed, and I have no evidence that the import has been checked by an increase in the home manufacture. No excise duty is levied on cocoa butter manufactured in the United Kingdom. I am considering the question whether, and how far, the duty is protective in its operation.

    Imports of Manufactured Cocoa and Tobacco.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the small quantities of prepared cocoa and manufactured tobacco imported into the United
    1406
    Kingdom as compared with the quantities of raw cocoa and unmanufactured tobacco, respectively, so imported; and if he will cause inquiry to be made in order to ascertain whether the higher duties now imposed on prepared cocoa and manufactured tobacco are of a protective character, with a view to their early modification.
    MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the comparatively small quantities of cocoa and tobacco imported into the United Kingdom in a manufactured state, and I am disposed to think that the additional duty on the imported manufactured article is in these cases more than the exact equivalent of the loss of interest and of duty-paid material or the expense caused to the manufacturer by excise restrictions when the manufacture takes place in bond. An exact equivalent is, however, from the nature of the case, very difficult to determine; but I am giving the subject consideration.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gladstone, in proposing the present scale of tobacco duties, expressly stated that they had been fixed so that the people employed in the trade, many of whom were women and children, might be well provided for?
    MR. ASQUITH: I cannot carry in my mind what Mr. Gladstone said in 1862. If the right hon. Gentleman will put down his Question I will answer it.

    South African Mining Share Registers.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many large shareholders in South African mining companies are in the habit of altering their addresses upon the share registers, prior to the declaration of dividends, to make it appear that they are resident in South Africa, for the purpose of escaping liability for income-tax upon such dividends; and whether he will give directions to the income-tax collectors to make inquiries from the secretaries of South African mining companies, and report the result of such inquiries to the House.
    MR. ASQUITH; The Board of Inland Revenue have no knowledge of such a practice. The tax upon the profits of

    1407
    companies, of which the seat of direction and the register of shareholders are situated in the United Kingdom, is assessed upon the company, and not upon individual shareholders. The addresses of the shareholders in these companies are therefore not of interest to the collectors of income-tax.

    Taxation on Sport.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the expediency of making arrangements in the forthcoming Budget to impose special taxes on deer forests, salmon fishings, and grouse moors.
    MR. ASQUITH: I see no sufficient reason for taxing these particular objects of sumptuary expenditure to the exclusion of others, and any comprehensive scheme for taxing all such expenditure would be difficult to frame and still more difficult to administer. In my opinion, the object of my hon. friend, which I take to be to secure a larger proportionate contribution to the public revenue from the wealthier classes, could be more effectively secured by other means.
    MR. WEIR: And here you have enormous funds waiting to be hauled into your net!

    Inland Revenue Officials' Grievances.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a meeting of Inland Revenue officials recently held; and whether, in view of the grievances declared to exist by those attending that meeting, and of the representations these officers have from time to time made as to their pay and conditions of service, he will take steps to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into these grievances in the same way that the claims for inquiry by the employees of the Postal and Telegraph Departments have been granted.
    MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the meeting referred to, and I am prepared to consider any representations that may be made to me. I do not think there is any sufficient ground for appointing a Select Committee.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: And is that refusal based on the fact that these officers are not so numerous as the postal employees and not so powerfully organised?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Inspection of Monastic and Conventual Institutions.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, his attention-has been called to the increase of monastic and conventual institutions, and whether he will consider the need for their inspection; also whether he has any official information as to the regulations affecting the inspection of such institutions in other countries.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have no official information on the subjects mentioned in the Question and I do not propose to-introduce legislation to deal with this matter.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the regulations in other countries?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The question is a very old one; I will consider the point.

    Foreign Labour in English and Scotch Mines
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Poles and other foreigners are working in the mines of England and Scotland; and whether he anticipates that the new regulations under the Aliens Act will lead to an increase in the number.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiries of the inspectors, and the estimates furnished by them (which must be taken as approximate only), show that the number of foreigners employed in mines in this country is under 3,000. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Administration of the Aliens Act.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

    1409
    Home Department if he will recognise the formation of voluntary committees of persons interested in the exclusion of diseased and destitute aliens from this country; and if members of these committees will be allowed to attend the meetings of the immigration boards, at which committees of those interested in the case of the alien immigrant are to have a semi-official status.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I should welcome the co-operation of any voluntary agencies which in my judgment would be calculated to strengthen the just administration of the Act. As to admission to hoards meetings I may point out that under Rule 23 immigration boards may allow any person to be heard to whom they give special leave, and I see no reason for altering this rule.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what portions of Europe have been scheduled as being in a disturbed condition; and upon whom the responsibiltiy of determining this question will in the future rest.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No such schedule has been made. The matter was explained by the Answers I gave yesterday.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reduction of staff, engaged in administering the Aliens Act, is anticipated from his decision to allow unrestricted immigration from Russia.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made no such decision. If there is any change in the Home Office staff it will certainly not be a reduction.
    LORD TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a diseased alien from the Russian Empire will be allowed to land, on his assurance that he is a deserter from the Russian army and liable to religious persecution if repatriated.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an alien immigrant who, so far as the immigration authorities can ascertain, is a
    1410
    pauper, a diseased person, an idiot, or a criminal, is to be admitted to this country if he or she alleges that he or she comes from a disturbed country, or a disturbed district of a foreign country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to answer hypothetical Questions with regard to the duties imposed by the Act on the immigration officers and immigration boards.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to secure accurate information as to the political condition of the districts of foreign countries from which alien immigrants allege they have fled to England in order to avoid danger of life, limb, and property.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I answered this Question yesterday.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the exercise of his statutory discretion under the Aliens Act he is entitled, by regulations, to admit to this country alien idiots, alien paupers, aliens suffering from loathsome diseases, and persons likely to become a charge upon the public funds, if they allege that they are fleeing from religious or political persecution.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, and I have made no such regulations.

    Prison Warders' Grievances.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged grievances of prison warders, and grant to them the right of federation in the same way as now enjoyed by the postal employees.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No grievances of prison warders have yet been brought to my notice. When they are, I will, of course, give them my consideration. As to the second part of the Question, a similar inquiry has been put to me by two other hon. Members, and I should like to defer my Answer for further consideration.

    Expulsion of Foreign Criminals.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed that foreign criminals convicted of felony in this country shall immediately after conviction be expelled from this country, or whether they shall become a public charge by reason of a long term of imprisonment in this country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have already answered this Question in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, on the 6th of this month.† If the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, this country would become the happy hunting ground for all foreign criminals.

    Case of Frances Melville.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of three years' penal servitude passed on a woman, Frances Melville, at the North London Sessions, in February last; and whether, in view of the absence of motive for the crime charged (shoplifting), and the indication the case afforded of mental irresponsibility, he proposes taking any action in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I had not heard of this case until my attention was called to it by the hon. Member's Question. I have now made inquiry as to the woman's mental state and I find that there is nothing in her condition to justify her being certified insane. The information I have received points to drink as the cause of this unhappy woman's crimes, and I fear there is no action I can take in the matter.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSasked the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that this old lady had £700 in consols and other property, and that she had collected a most miscellaneous set of articles in her room.

    Bullying on the "Clio"—Case of William Crook.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    See (4) Debates, cliii., 297.
    1412
    Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the death of William Crook, a Bury boy, aged thirteen years, who died, in the beginning of February last, as the result of injuries received from bullying on board the "Clio" training-ship, stationed on the Menai Straits; and whether the officers in charge of the "Clio" have been censured for allowing the possibility of such bullying taking place.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have had this unfortunate case under my consideration. The coroner's jury brought in a verdict of death from misadventure, and though it is much to be regretted that no one heard of the assault in time to prevent the injuries of the boy, I am not prepared to say that this was the result of any neglect of duty. My inquiries into the matter are not yet finished.

    Case of John Joyce.
    MR. C. D. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, with regard to the case of John Joyce, of Manchester, who suffered imprisonment, although innocent, and to whom the Treasury awarded £25 and a free pardon, he will consider the case and increase the allowance, as the sum already given does not cover legal expenses and the loss by breaking up the home of the innocent man during his incarceration.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In view of the special considerations which the hon. Member has laid before me, I will ask the Treasury for a further grant.

    Inspection of Scottish Fish-curing Stations.
    MR. J. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors of fish-curing stations have been appointed throughout Scotland; and if he will consider the desirability of appointing men as well as women inspectors.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The inspection of fish-curing stations forms part of the general work of the Factory Department, and is carried out by the ordinary staff. No special inspectors are appointed for the purpose. The ordinary staff in Scotland consists of nine men inspectors, one

    1413
    lady inspector, and five inspectors' assistants. Special attention has been given recently to the fish-curing stations in Scotland, and the supervision of them will be still further improved by the creation of the new district in North Scotland, which has recently been determined upon, with headquarters in Inverne'S. I may add that the great majority of the stations, as being workshops, also come under the control of the local authorities in regard to the sanitary provisions of the Factory Act.

    Steamship Boat Drill.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the law providing that all passenger and other steamers must carry a certain number of boats, which must be kept in good order, is practically ignored, and that in many cases the boats are not tested more than once a year; and if he will give instructions that on all ships the boats provided for crews and passengers shall be tested by being put into practical working at least once a month.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE): No, Sir, I have no reason to think that the law to which my hon. friend refers is in any way ignored. On the contrary, I am assured that the boats of passenger steamers are inspected before the issue of their passenger certificate, those in the Atlantic passenger trade being inspected every voyage. Vessels engaged in other trades are inspected as frequently as possible, but, without an army of surveyors, it would be impossible for the Board's staff to inspect the boats of all vessels once a month.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on the inspectors seeing that boat drills take place periodically, and that the boats are seaworthy?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will bear that in mind.

    Brussels Sugar Commission.
    MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Mr. George Martineau is now retiring from his position on the Sugar Com-
    1414
    mission, under the Sugar Bounties Convention, he will say whether the vacancy will be filled up immediately; and, if so, will care be taken that the appointment made will be that of a person having no connection with sugar refining or planting, so that the interests of the British consumer may be adequately represented.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is no intention to make a permanent appointment of an assistant delegate to the Sugar Commission in place of Mr. Martineau. In any arrangements that may be made from time to time having regard to the nature of the business to be transacted by the Commission the interests of the British trader and consumer will be fully borne in mind.

    Prices of Sugar.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the price of sugar, raw and refined, duty paid, in London, in March of each of the following years, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate this with the Answers to unstarred Questions.

    Southport Express Accident.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an accident at Hall Road Station, Southport, in July last, through an electric express from Liverpool running into a stationary train, resulting in the death of twenty passengers and injury to forty-five others; is he aware that some of the passengers on stepping out of the wrecked train, and coming into contact with the live rails, were electrocuted; and will he state how many of the passengers thus lost their lives, and why there is no reference to the electrocution of passengers in this accident in the Board of Trade Report of the inquiry.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think my hon. friend has been misinformed as to the facts of this accident. No evidence was produced at the inquiry held on behalf of the Board of Trade that any of the passengers were killed by electrical shock; the Railway Company cannot ascertain that any passenger received any electrical shock, and the Coroner who held

    1415
    the inquests on the passengers who lost their lives, informs me that there is no foundation for the suggestion that any of them were killed by electricity.
    MR. WEIR: I think if the right hon. Gentleman inquires further he will find that my information is accurate.

    Wheat Prices.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the President

    Years.

    United Kingdom.

    Germany.

    Average Price of English Wheat. Per Quarter

    Average Import Price of Wheat. Per Quarter

    Average Price of Wheat at Berlin Per Quarter.

    Average Import of Wheat. Per Quarter.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1901

    26

    9

    28

    4

    35

    8

    28

    10

    1902

    28

    1

    28

    7

    35

    6

    28

    6

    1903

    26

    9

    29

    1

    35

    1

    28

    6

    1904

    28

    4

    30

    0

    38

    0

    30

    3

    1905

    29

    8

    31

    0

    38

    1

    30

    11

    The Berlin price stated may include some imported wheat. (Imported wheat forms about one-third of the German supply.)

    Boys in the Postal Service.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can say how many boys under sixteen years of age have been employed in any capacity in the postal and telegraph service during the past ten years; how many of these have been retained in the permanent ranks of the service in any capacity at the close of boyhood; how many have failed to find appointment in the service; whether his Department has in any way assisted these latter to permanent appointments outside the Department; and whether he has any information as to what has become of them.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I presume the hon. Member's Question refers to the telegraph messen-
    of the Board of Trade what the average prices of home - grown and imported wheat were respectively in Germany during the five years ending 31st December, 1905; and what were respectively the average prices of home-grown and imported wheat in the United Kingdom during a similar period.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The following gives the information asked for so far as it is available:—
    gers, who are the only boys under sixteen employed in the Post Office in considerable numbers, though the age of admission of certain other classes falls below sixteen at the inferior limit. To compile the Return asked for would occupy much time and labour. It may perhaps suffice to say that there are now in the Post Office 16,496 telegraph messengers. Of these perhaps half receive permanent posts. Many of the others leave of their own accord, and the rest for whom permanent places cannot be found are required to leave at sixteen, as their prospects of obtaining suitable private employment are much better at that age than they would be if they were retained longer in the service. It must be recollected that the Post Office is under agreement with the War Office and the Admiralty, to reserve half the appointments of postmen and certain other classes for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. The matter is engaging my serious attention, with a view to see how far other openings can be found for these boys, either in public or private service.
    MR. SLOAN: Then do I understand that boys who are not to be permanently employed have to leave at the age of sixteen.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not compulsory, and in some cases they are kept on longer. The reason for the arrangement is, it is found by experience if a boy leaves at sixteen, it is much more easy for him to find a place than if he is not discharged till he is eighteen.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Am I to understand you cannot find permanent employment for more than half the boys?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON; I regret to say that is so.

    Merioneth Education Rate.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an inquiry has yet been held in Merionethshire with regard to the request of the Education Committee of that county to levy a rate over the limit of 2d. allowed by the Education Act, 1902; and, if so, what the result of such inquiry has been.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): A local inquiry was held on this subject on the 7th instant. Some additional information was found to be necessary, and it was arranged that the accounts should be again examined, and that further information should be supplied. The inspector is awaiting its receipt before making his Report.

    Rotherham School Teacher's Grievance.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has asked the Rotherham Borough Council, or the Committee, for an explanation of their action in connection with the dismissal of Miss Turner, a pupil-teacher, for refusing to remove an engagement ring from her finger, at the bidding of Miss Hodge, one of the mistresses; what explanation do they offer for their treatment of this young lady; whether he is aware that, when ordered to remove the ring, Miss Turner stated that she was wearing it with the sanction of her
    1418
    parents, and that she did not recognise the authority of anyone else to order her to remove it; whether there is any rule prohibiting the wearing of engagement rings in the pupil-teacher centre, Rotherham; and whether he will recommend that Miss Turner be reinstated in her position, where she gave five years service, or that adequate compensation be given her for the loss of her employment.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The President of the Board has written to the Education Authority, asking for any further information and explanation they may desire to offer. He will let the hon. Member know the result of his inquiries.

    Half-times at School.
    LORD J. JOICEY-CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the difficulties experienced by the labouring classes in the agricultural districts in providing necessaries for their families owing to their small earnings, he will consider the advisability of authorising the local educational authorities to allow boys of twelve years of age to leave school provided they can get employment at not less than 5s. per week, so as to contribute to the up-keep of the family and complete their education by attending night school.
    MR. LOUGH: Under the Elementary Education Act, 1899, it is permissible for a Local Education Authority to adopt a by-law allowing half-time exemption to children employed in agriculture on reaching eleven years of age. I do not consider that any extension of this power is necessary at the present time.

    Education Bill.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state when the Education Bill will be introduced.
    MR. LOUGH (for Mr. BIRRELL): I am afraid that I cannot give the date at present.
    COLONEL LEGGE: Has the Bill been drafted?
    MR. LOUGH: I have no information to give.

    Vote for Commissions.
    MR. CAVENDISH (: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give particulars of the items composing the grant of £12,659 (Commissions not specifically provided for by Class VII., 1 L), in view of the fact that this sum represents an increase of £5,659 over the sum voted in 1905–6.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Subhead, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, is a margin on the Vote to provide for expenditure which either cannot be foreseen or for which an estimate in detail cannot be framed at the time when the Estimates are closed; and beyond certain small remanets from expiring Commissions, which it is useful to include in it, the Subhead does not represent particular items. The increase is due to the Estimate for the current year having proved insufficient by the amount of the Supplementary Estimate of £36,000 recently voted. Provision will be required for the Commission on Sea Erosion; the Estimate of £4,000 for the Canal Commission is an uncertain one; and further provision, to an extent which it has not yet been possible to determine, will be required for the Poor Law Commission.

    Promised Inquiries.
    MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give a list of the Royal Commissions, Select Committees, Joint Committees, and Departmental Committees appointed and announced by the Government; and what is the estimated cost of these inquiries during 1906–7.
    MR. MCKENNA: The notice given me by the hon. Member has not been sufficient to enable me to prepare a complete Answer; but so far as I am aware, the Afforestation and Foreshore Commission is the only one which has been announced but has not yet been appointed by the Government. The
    1420
    names of most of the Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees at present appointed will be found in the Estimate for Temporary Commissions, Vote 1, of Class VII, in the Civil Service Estimates for 1906–7. A few, however, have been omitted because the expenditure likely to be incurred by them in 1906–7 appeared to be trifling, if anything at all. These are the War Stores and Motor Car Commissions, the Small Holdings, Agricultural Settlements, Expenditure on Education, and Royal Hibernian Academy Committees. The cost of Commissions and Committees not shown in the Estimate is included in the margin of £12,659 for contingencies provided under Subhead L. The Select Committees which have been appointed to date, are, so far as I am aware, Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, House of Commons Procedure, Butter, Post Office Employé's, Police and Sanitary, Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, Public Petitions, Selection and Public Accounts Committees (the last four being sessional). The cost of these Select Committees is borne on [the House of Commons Vote, but it has not been the practice to estimate for them specifically. With regard to that part of the Question which deals with Departmental Committees, I have no information to give the hon. Member, as these Committees may be appointed by the Department concerned without the knowledge of the Treasury, and their expenses are borne on the Department's own Vote.

    Cliffords' Inn.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the new scheme for dealing with the funds arising out of the sale of Clifford's Inn has been settled, and when will it be made public; and what share of the said funds will be devoted to providing legal education in universities and institutions in London or the provinces.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): The scheme was prepared under the sanction of my predecessor. I understand there have been some difficulties attending its being put into practical operation. The fund is now being administered under a provisional arrrangement.

    Edward Wainhouse Charity, Sowerby.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he is aware that the Edward Wainhouse Charity, left for the benefit of the poor of Sowerby town and vested by the donor in the overseers as trustees, is in the hands of and distributed by the vicars of the township, and will directions be given that in future the distribution shall be made by the overseers, as directed by the will of the testator; and will he explain why the Charity Commissioners are seeking, in opposition to the wishes of the trustees appointed under the will, to amalgamate this charity with others in which they, the trustees, are not interested.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The vicars of the ecclesiastical parishes in the township of Sowerby are not entitled to distribute the income of Edward Wainhouse's Charity. The Charity Commissioners are informed that the Charity is now distributed by the Churchwardens of Sowerby. The Overseers of the township are not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the Trustees of the Charity. Overseers are not now appointed for the area which in 1686 (the date of the founder's will) constituted the township of Sowerby. That area now includes, besides the existing township of Sowerby, parts of Sowerby Bridge, Luddenden Foot, Erring-den, Mytholmroyd and Halifax. The Commissioners desire to constitute a body of Trustees, including representatives of the local authorities of the area entitled to the benefit of the Charity and to amalgamate it with other Charities for the same area, so as to save expense and prevent overlapping.

    Scottish Churches Disputes.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: 1 beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Commission appointed to settle the disputes as between the United Free Church and the Legal Free Church is likely to make a further report as to whom the church buildings, from which the members of the United Free Church were evicted in process of law, belong.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Com-
    1422
    mission has already issued a list of more than 700 churches which are to be allocated to one or other of the two churches. In the more contentious cases furthur investigation is necessary; and in regard to a considerable number of them, local inquiries. No date therefore can yet be fixed for a further allocation.

    Fencing of Deer Forests.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of issuing a circular to deer forest proprietors in the Highland crofting counties, urging them to fence in their forests in such an effective manner as to prevent the deer from straying on to the adjoining lands, and ravaging the crops thereon.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The point will he borne in mind in connection with the amendment of the Crofters Act, which is now being prepared.

    East Riding of Cork—Defalcations of Tristram Curry.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney - General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a memorandum from the Southern Law Association intimating their unanimous conclusion, after a full investigation, that there is no ground for suggesting that there has been any contributory negligence on the part of suitors or their solicitors in reference to the defalcations of Tristram Curry, late acting-clerk of the peace for the East Riding of Cork: and that according to the settled practice of the Recorder's Court, there is no rule published or known to the practitioners of the court prescribing that moneys should be lodged in the Recorder's name; why the Recorder has failed to carry out in the East Riding the rule in force in the West Riding, by which the moneys of suitors are lodged in the joint names of the county court judge and his officer; and whether any deficiency remaining after Curry's sureties have discharged their liability will be made good by the official whose duty it was to see that the clerk of the peace properly invested the moneys lodged with him; or what other steps will be taken to indemnify suitors.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My attention has been called to the memorandum referred to in the Question, but I regret to say that I cannot agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Southern Law Association. It appears from their own statement that in the case investigated by them, the conditions of sale, as approved of by the court, directed payment to be made to the clerk of the peace only, and that the solicitor, whose duty it was to make the payment, instead of complying with the conditions, handed the money to another official who had no authority, as far as I can see, to receive it. Under these circumstances, I cannot understand how the Association has arrived at the conclusion that the solicitor in question is free from blame in the matter. The assertion of the Association that there are no rules published prescribing that money should be lodged in the Recorder's name is quite contrary to the fact. The County Court Orders, 1890, provide for payment of trust moneys into a bank in the joint names of the judge and the clerk of the peace. These rules are signed by the present Recorder of Cork, and apply to his court as well as to all county courts in Ireland. If they were strictly observed, defalcations such as have unfortunately taken place, would be impossible. Until the matter is fully investigated, as I hope it will be within a short time, it would be impossible for me to say who is mainly responsible for the irregularities which have apparently prevailed in dealing with money in the Recorder's Court. It has not yet been shown that any of the moneys, which has been embezzled ever reached the hands of the clerk of the peace at all, or that he was aware of its payment to Curry. No blame, therefore, should be attached to him for what has taken place.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the Society have an opportunity of being heard?
    MR. CHERRY: I will take an early opportunity of communicating with the Lord Chancellor to see what can be done.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has promised full investigation. Will he undertake that it shall be conducted by a person independent both of the Government and of the local people?
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot say at a moment's notice by whom it will be conducted. I will confer with the Lord Chancellor and see what is best to be done.

    Labourer's Cottage at Delvin.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Local Government Board have disallowed the application of Christopher Gillick for a cottage and plot under the Labourers Acts, though approved by the Delvin District Council and by the farmer on whose land the cottage was proposed to to be placed, in view of the fact that the reason alleged, that the applicant is unmarried, has been disregarded in other cases.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The hon. Member has been misinformed. The case in question in included in the Provisional Order which was made on the 1st instant.

    Colonel Smythe's Westmeath Estates.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the prices at which Colonel Smythe of Gaybrook, Westmeath, has offered to sell one of his estates, under the Land Act of 1903; is he aware that three tenants, having refused to sign purchase agreements on the landlord's terms, have since been served with writs, one for two years rents, and one for a hanging gale, no more being due; whether the Estates Commissioners will treat this conduct as duress, and, irrespective of the zones, refuse to sanction any sale of this estate except at fair prices; and whether any steps will be taken to restrain or dissuade Colonel Smythe from taking legal proceedings against these tenants in the meantime.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my replies to the hon. Member's Questions of February 26th †and March Gth.‡ I have already stated that, if proceedings for the sale of the estate in question should come before the Estates Commissioners, they will, before sanctioning any
    †See (4) Debates, clii., 764.
    ‡See (4) Debates, cliii., 308.

    1425
    advance, make such inquiry into the circumstances of the case as may be within their province as defined by law. I am unable to make any statement as to what action the Commissioners may take in a case which has not yet come before them.
    MR. GINNELL: My Question relates to an entirely different landlord?
    MB. BRYCE: But the principle involved may be the same.

    Estate Commissioners Forms.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he request the Estates Commissioners to amend Form E, which they propose to issue to their inspectors, by inserting in it between B and C, a space and query with reference to the tenant's occupation, interest, or amount to which he would be entitled as compensation for disturbance in case of capricious eviction, and to amend their instructions by the addition of a paragraph on this subject; and, if not, to state how it is proposed to protect purchasing tenants from being obliged to buy and pay for what is already by law their own property.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they do not consider it necessary to amend Form E in the instructions to inspectors by asking any questions as to the tenant's occupation interest, or as to the amount to which he would be entitled as compensation for disturbance in case of capricious eviction. In their opinion, sufficient materials to enable them to form an opinion as to the price of the landlord's interest will be furnished by the answers to questions B, C and D, and by compliance with the directions given in paragraph 37 of the instructions.

    Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
    MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that, in the estimates of expenditure under the Irish Development Grant Fund, £12,000 is allocated towards extensions of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway; whether he is aware that the Bill submitted by the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company has been unanimously
    1426
    rejected by the Leitrim County Council, and that the promoters have accordingly abandoned the Bill; and will he see that no further useless expenditure from the Development Grant Fund is incurred in connection with this rejected scheme.
    MR. BRYCE.This matter is receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject, beyond the expression of my regret that so many difficulties seem to have arisen.

    Lisburn Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the time intervening between the application for a labourer's cottage in the Lisburn district until the same has been built and ready for occupation, as compared with a similar transaction in the Antrim district; and whether, in view of the delay in providing these houses, he will take steps to insist on the Antrim Rural District Council having the work completed forthwith.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are informed that in the case of the Lisburn Rural District, as a rule, a period of not more than one and a half years elapses between the receipt of a representation for labourers' cottages and the completion of the building of the cottages. In the case of the Antrim Rural District, a considerable delay occurred in connection with the first scheme, because of the refusal of the Council to build cottages for fishermen; and the time which elapsed between the date of the original application, and the dates of the completion of the cottages was from three to four years. The Local Government Board are informed that the cottages for which a second scheme was formulated in 1904 will be completed this year. If, however, further delay should occur, the Board will take such action as may be possible to expedite the completion of the cottages.

    Donagh Nationalist Flute Band.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on February 7th the Donagh Nationalist Flute Band went to Middleton, County Armagh, returning at midnight, accompanied, by a crowd, many of whom were

    1427
    intoxicated, and insisted, against the request of the police, in going through the village of Glasslough, and breaking the windows of Protestants, and also fired several shots at the house of a Protestant, and badly wounded the sergeant of police; and whether he will say what steps he intends taking to protect the lives and property of the peaceful inhabistants of Glasslough in the future.
    MR. BRYCE: The incident in question is the subject of proceedings which are pending at petty sessions, and it would be undesirable and contrary to practice to make any statement in the matter while the proceedings are sub judice.

    Cloncah Police.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that while the extra police were stationed at Cloncah, County Galway, several massive iron gates were stolen off the lands, also a heavy stone trough that was in use in the yard of the house the police were stationed in; and what steps will be taken by the present Government for the recovery of the stolen property.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that no complaint was made to the local police of any theft in this case. The police, however, subsequently heard incidentally that a pair of old iron gates were missing from the lands in question, whereupon they made search for them, but failed to trace them. They have ascertained that the stone trough referred to was presented by the owner to his herd, in whose possession it remains. The extra police had left Cloncah at the date of the disappearance of the gates.

    Lowe Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Lowe estate around Galbally, county Limerick, is being sold to the tenants; can he say whether the town tenants in Galbally are included in the sale; and how far matters have so far progressed with both rural and town tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an orignating application in respect of the estate of Lieut-Colonel J. M. Lowe has been lodged
    1428
    with them. The estate to be sold comprises the village of Lowes' Town, but does not appear to include the village of Galbally.

    Croker Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for sale to the tenants are in progress on the Croker estate, in the townlands of Moohane, Cahircourtney, Rawleighstown and Ballinagarde, in the county of Limerick; can he say whether in these negotiations, the holding of Michael Power, son of the late Richard Power, evicted in June 1890, is included; can he say whether Mr. Courteney Croker and the receiver, Mr. John B. Barrington, have signified their willingness to the reinstatement of Michael Power; is he aware that a planter named Timothy Kirby holds the farm of Michael Power, and that Timothy Kirby has expressed his willingness to leave the farm, provided that he gets another farm on the untenanted lands on the estate, the evicted farm of the late Morgan Hayes excepted; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners undertake, under these circumstances, to reinstate Michael Power in his farm.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application in repect of the sale of this estate has been recently lodged with them. Timothy Kirby appears on the shedule of of tenancies lodged, as tenant of a farm which the Commissioners understand was formerly occupied by Richard Power deceased. No purchase agreement has yet been lodged for this holding. Application for reinstatement has Been made by by Michael Power, the son of Richard-Power, and the Commissioners will make inquiries and endeavour to effect an arrangement between Kirby, the present occupier, and Michael Power.

    Kilmallock Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say whether it is owing to the action of the Local Government Board, or to what other agency, the present scheme of labourers' cottages being built in the Kilmallock rural district has been so long without coming to completion; how many cottages and plots for labourers have been approved of in

    1429
    the Cahirconney electoral division; under what method of procedure are the tenancies on the O'Grady property being transferred from the landlord to the tenants, and what progress has been made with the sales; and will he see that the labourers' plots are contracted for forthwith, so as to afford immediate employment, and give the labourers an opportunity of tilling the plots before it runs too late in the spring.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have pressed forward the scheme referred to as much as possible, but there has been delay on the part of the rural district council in carrying out its details. The erection of ten new cottages, and the acquisition of one existing cottage in Cahirconney electoral division have been authorised. The Local Government Board have no information as to the O'Grady property. With regard to the final inquiry, I am advised that, pending the legal acquisition of the plots, it is open to the rural district council to enter upon the lands which it is proposed to acquire, provided that they obtain permission from the owners and occupiers.

    Goodbody Estate, Athenry.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the names and qualifications of the tenants who have got new holdings on the Goodbody estate, near Athenry; how many of the former occupying tenants on the same property made application for additional land; and will he state what apportionment of the land was made amongst them.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase by them of a portion of this estate has not yet been completed. Provisional arrangements, however, have been made for the disposal of the untenanted land to twenty-four purchasers, all of whom are tenants on the estate, with the exception of one, who is the son of a tenant. The Commissioners do not consider it desirable to make any statement as to the names of the proposed purchasers or the apportionment of the lands among them until the sale is completed.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
    1430
    Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland recently purchased the Goodbody estate, near Athenry; what was the extent and area of this property, how much of it has been retained by the Department of Agriculture, and what quantity of it has been handed over to the Estate Commissioners, firstly, as untenanted land, and secondly, as holdings in the possession of agricultural tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture have recently purchased the estate, which comprised 2,305 acres. The Department have retained for their own purposes, 740 acres, and proceedings are being taken for the sale by them to the Estate Commissioners of the remaining 1,565 acres. Of the latter quantity, l,064½ acres are untenanted, and 500½ acres are tenanted.
    MR. DUFFY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the claims of the evicted tenant on this property? Will he suggest to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of providing for this man?
    MR. BRYCEpromised to forward any communication the hon. Member might send him to the Commissioners.

    Athenry Labourers' Cottages Scheme.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers' cottages have been built at Caherown and Knockaneglass, Athenry, within the past two years; what was the price paid for each site; who was the Local Government Board arbitrator appointed to assess the price; and if any claims have reached the Local Government Board on behalf of persons laying claim to a portion of the sites so acquired.
    MR. BRYCE: Four labourers' cottages have been built at Caherown, but none at. Knockaneglass. The site at Caherown, which consisted of two acres of land near Athenry railway station, was considered by the arbitrator to possess exceptional value as a building site. The total compensation awarded to owner, lessee, and grazing tenant, was £311 18s. 0d. The arbitrator was Mr. J. H. Ryan, C. E. The Answer to the final inquiry is in the negative.

    Catherown Estate, Athenry.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are on foot by the Estate Commissioners for the purchase of the Caherown estate, near Athenry; and, if so, will steps be taken to ascertain the requirements of the people of Athenry for accommodation land before any final allocation is made.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are not able to trace any proceedings in their office in respect of the Caherown Estate, near Athenry, and have no information in regard to any negotiations for the sale of the estate.

    Ballyhaise Disturbances.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Sunday the 11th February, a mob of 300 persons, headed by Mr. Thomas Smith, J.P., chairman of the Cavan Rural District Council, Mr. Fitzpatrick, D.C., and Joseph Mulligan, an evicted tenant, marched on to the farm of Peter Brady, near Ballyhaise, tore down fences and held a meeting, at which threats were uttered against Brady; what steps have been taken against those who organised these proceedings; and whether it is intended to remove Mr. Thomas Smith from the office of justice of the peace.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that these men are at present under-going imprisonment, and the object of the Question is vexatious and aggravating, you, Mr. Speaker, will rule it out of order?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot rule a Question out of order because it is aggravating and vexatious. It is open to the Minister to say whether or not he will answer it.
    MR. BRYCE: The attention of the Government has been called to this matter by proceedings in the Land Judge's Court which resulted in an order by the learned Judge for the attachment of the persons named in the Question. It has not been considered necessary that proceedings at the instance of the police should be taken in the case. The Lord
    1432
    Chancellor informs me that the matter referred to has not been brought to his notice.

    Castlepollard Shooting Incident.
    MR. LONDSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of a shooting incident in the Castlepollard district of county Westmeath; is he aware that the house of a man named Clinton was fired into; and have any arrests been made in connection with this matter?
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that on the 2nd inst. a gun shot was fired into the house of Patrick Clinton, who had been engaged in litigation with a neighbour as to a debt for money. An arrest was subsequently made by the police, but the accused was discharged by the magisstrates.

    Phœnix Park, Dublin.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Government expect to throw open to the public the recent additions to the Phœnix Park; and whether there would be any difficulty in appropriating further sums from the amount realised from quit rents and woods and forests in Ireland to the improvement and beautification of the new addition.
    MR. McKENNA: The additional land referred to was acquired with a view not to increasing the area of the Phœnix Park but to preserving its existing amenities. It is separated from the Park by a public road and a large part of it in addition by an unbridged river. I am not prepared to authorise its inclusion in the Park, as I am informed that the expense of such a measure would be prohibitive. It would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Lands Acts to appropriate the Crown Revenues collected by the Commissioners of Woods in Ireland to the purposes referred to in the Question.

    Queen's College, Belfast.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the agreement to provide further funds for the Belfast Queen's College is contained in any letter or minute in writing; and can he give the date of the minute

    1433
    or letter, and the name of the Minister asssenting to or responsible for the same.
    MR. McKENNA: The quotation which I read out in my Answer to the hon. Member for Waterford on Tuesday† was taken from a letter dated the 28th January, 1893, and addressed to the Rev. T. Hamilton, D.D., Queen's College, Belfast. The letter was written by direction of and signed by Sir John Hibbert, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    Irish Financial Relations.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the custom in estimating the amount of the expenditure upon Imperial services in Ireland to charge such expenditure against the Irish Revenue Account; and whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Financial Relations reported that no portion of the Imperial expenditure could, in their view, be regarded as local or as a set-off to excessive taxation (page 25 of Report), and that to make a charge for Irish purposes would be to do what the constitution does not sanction (page 103); and, if so, will he state by what authority such a custom is sanctioned, and at what date such a custom began.
    MR. McKENNA: In the Financial Relations Returns Ireland is not charged with the expenditure on any Imperial service. If the Hon. Member will refer to the Annual Returns he will find that the total expenditure is classified therein sunder the four heads of "English Services," "Scottish Services," "Irish Services," and "General Services." The last mentioned heading includes the charges for the National Debt, the Army and Navy, the Diplomatic, Consular, and Colonial Services, and other services which may be called "Imperial" in the sense that they are carried on for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. No part of that expenditure is set down against Ireland. The passages which the Hon. Member quotes from the Report of the Financial Relations Commission do not occur in the General Report which was signed by eleven of the thirteen members, but in two Supplementary Reports, one
    See (4) Debates, cliii., 1111.
    1434
    of which was signed by five, and the other by three of the members. It would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept the view of those members that, in considering the burden of taxation upon Ireland, no regard is to be paid to the amount of the charge for purely Irish services which is defrayed out of State revenues. The Act of Union contemplated that the total expenditure of the United Kingdom should be "defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country," subject only to such particular abatements and exemptions in Ireland or Scotland as circumstances might require. That is the system now in force. No constitutional rule is infringed if, in considering the financial position of Ireland, we take account of the fact that, since the date of the Union, it has become the practice to devote large sums out of the revenues raised by the State to the assistance of local authorities, to contributions to the cost of education, and to other services of local application; and that the sums thus supplied in the three countries are not in the same proportions as their contributions to revenue. That method has been followed with the sanction of this House since 1890, when a Select Committee was appointed to consider the equity of the financial relations of the three countries, with regard not only to their contributions to revenue, but also to their shares in expenditure.

    Midland Great Western Company and the Royal Canal.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the requirements of Section 36 of the Act 8th and 9th Victoria, chapter 119, and the fact that General Hutchinson and Major Marindin, inspectors of the Board of Trade, have both reported the Midland Great Western Railway Company as having failed to discharge its duty of maintaining, upholding, and preserving the Royal Canal for the purpose of navigation, and specified certain works as essential to the main tenance of the canal and to the discharge of the company's statutory obligations, and that the non-execution of these works is a serious loss to many, whether the Board of Trade will require the Midland Great Western Railway Company forthwith to execute, not improvements, but

    1435
    the works of restoration and maintenance essential to put the Royal Canal in proper navigable order, in accordance with the statute, the bye-laws made thereunder, and the reports of the inspectors.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have no power either under the section referred to by the hon. Member or otherwise to take the action suggested.

    Emigration from Port Galway.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of emigrants who sailed from the Port of Galway for the United States during the year ending 31st December, 1905; and what steamship lines are engaged in this service from Galway.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: According to the passenger lists furnished to this Department, the number of passengers who left the Port of Galway for the United States in 1905 was 297. All these were steerage passengers, and they were conveyed by vessels belonging to the Allan Line.

    Committee of Inquiry for South Africa.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is yet in a position to announce the names of the Committee of Inquiry which is to proceed to South Africa, or the terms of the reference for its guidance.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN,): No, Sir, I am not in a position to state the names of the Committee to-day, but I hope to do so shortly.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will this day week be convenient?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Any day will be convenient on which I am able to give the names.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the terms of reference also be communicated to the House?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, but I cannot say if they can be given at the same time as the names.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked for the ruling of the Chair on a point which, he said, had been long in some doubt and which it would be desirable to clear up, once and for all. It was whether Ways and Means counted as business in Supply.
MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt that Committee of Ways and Means, when put down for a purpose, such as that for which it is put down to-day, is business of Supply. But that is not the case when Committee of Ways and Means is taken as the first order, as for the Budget. The day on which that is done could not be counted in the allotted days. When Supply stands first and Committee of Ways and Means is put down for the purpose of moving certain Resolutions, in my opinion it comes within Standing Order 15 and could be taken without invalidating the day as an allotted day.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was glad to hear that ruling. He wished to ask the Leader of the House, on the basis of that ruling, whether he proposed to take anything after 12 o'clock except the Resolution in Ways and Means, if the 12 o'clock rule was suspended according to the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreminded the Prime Minister that in giving notice of his Motion yesterday he stated the suspension would be a pare formality and would be only for the purpose of the Resolution.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that since giving his notice he had ascertained that it had been ruled on one or two occasions that Committee of Ways and Means might be regarded as part of the business of Supply, and that view was in conformity with the ruling just given from the Chair. That vitiated the reason he gave yesterday for giving notice of a Motion to suspend the 12 o'clock rule, and he could not say any longer that it was merely for the purpose he named. He did hope to get Votes A and 1 to-night.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was very unwilling to press the doctrine of the

1437
honourable understanding, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that the belief obtained in the House that the suspension was for taking only a purely formal stage. He would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not make it one of the instructions to the Committee now dealing with the question of procedure to consider, with a view to its abolition, this particular stage which made a Resolution in Ways and Means necessary on which to found the Consolidated Fund Bill. He spoke, he said, on this subject with the more freedom as he was now in opposition and likely to remain so; therefore it could not be suggested he had other motives behind. He thought the stage was a survival which ought to be abolished. He desired further to ask what business would be taken next week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had no doubt that the question was well within the scope of the Committee's inquiry, and no doubt it would come under consideration. He had been pressed not to go beyond 12 o'clock, and as he had put down his notice for the suspension of the rule on a somewhat wrong ground, he would not insist on going beyond 12 o'clock. The business on Monday would be, if Votes A and I of the Army Estimates were obtained tonight, Report of the Navy and Army Votes, Ways and Means Report, and the First Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, On Tuesday certain Bills would be introduced, including the Merchant Shipping Bill. On Wednesday the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken, and on Thursday he should endeavour to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that very important changes of policy had been adumbrated in the statement of the Secretary for War, and unless they could take a general discussion on this Vote they would not be able to debate these questions of policy until the end of the session.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: General discussions on Army matters are sometimes taken on other Votes by arrangement.
MR. WYNDHAM: Is it not the case that general discussions on Army policy can only be raised on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for War?
MR. SPEAKER: Arrangements have very often been made with the consent of the Chair to continue the general discussion which takes place on Vote A on some subsequent Vote.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Arthur Clavell Salter, esquire, K.C., for the County of Hants (Northern or Basingstoke Division).
HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Viscount Selby to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on House of Commons (Procedure).—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Taxation and Purchase of Land by Local Authorities," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Levy, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Harvey, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Snowden; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 29th March, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
  MINES, ETC. (NATIONALISATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the Nationalisation of of Mines, Canals, Railways, and Tramways," presented by Mr. Thorne; supported by Mr. Walsh, Mr. Seddon, Mr. John Williams, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Jowett, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. James Parker, and Mr. Hudson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 27th April, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to amend

  1439
  the Law of Rating, and to establish Fair Kent Courts," presented by Mr. Steadman; supported by Mr. Alden, Mr. Bell, Mr. J. H. Bethell, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Thorne, and Mr. Wiles; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholds," presented by Mr. Maclean; supported by Mr. Evans, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Gooch, Mr. Simon, and Jenkins; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES 1906–7.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 204,100, all ranks, be maintained for 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 31st day of March, 1907."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I rise in response to the invitation—I might almost say challenge—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a Question. I am anxious to ascertain the total amount involved by the decision of His Majesty's Government to pay the local trades union rate of wages in all Government establishments. The right hon. Gentleman caused me to be informed that the suggestion that it was the decision of the Government to pay local trade union rates of wages was neither an accurate nor an adequate statement of the policy of the Government, and he referred me to statements made by the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty to a deputation which waited on them, † The only statement I have had an opportunity of hearing was one by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who did not
  See (4) Debates, cliii., 1103.
  1440
  pretend to explain fully the intentions of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be travelling far beyond the question before the Committee. He is only entitled to deal with it so far as the Army Estimates are concerned.
  MR. McCRAErose to a point of order. Was it not a fact that upon this Vote the discussion was confined to the number of men? Questions of finance could not be raised till later on.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is generally a wide discussion on this Vote.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is very inconvenient to have to raise this question now. If I had received the ordinary courtesy which Ministers usually show when civil questions are asked, it would not be necessary to repeat the Question now.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Civil!
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman looks-at the Question he will not be able to suggest there is anything uncivil or improper in it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Surely all Questions are civil. Will the right hon. Gentleman say which of the Ministers has been guilty of discourtesy, in order that he may have an opportunity of apologising?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to reply to a Question which asked for information given to other people outside this House in respect of a matter of public policy.
  MR. ASQUITH: Am I the person incriminated?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he believed he referred the right hon. Gentleman to the full statement made by the Secretary of State for War on the Army Estimates.

  1441
  That appeared to him to cover the whole ground, but if any further information were needed he would try to give it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had not been referred to any statement by the Secretary of State in that House, but to statements made to a deputation.
  MR. ASQUITH: That was before the Secretary of State made his statement.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Here is the right hon. Gentleman's own Answer, dated March 13th.†
  MR. ASQUITH: If that is so, I apologise; but I certainly thought I referred the right hon. Gentleman to the full and authoritative statement made by the Secretary for War. Nothing was further from my mind than to be guilty of any discourtesy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthanked the right hon. Gentleman, and said that if he was to understand that a full statement had been made in the House he had no cause for complaint. He only regretted he had not succeeded in understanding the right hon. Gentleman.
  MAJOR SEELYmoved to reduce the Vote by 10,000 men. He said that he might be excused for again trespassing on the time of the Committee, seeing that he had, with others, been concerned for some years in moving for a reduction of the personnel of the Army at a time when such a reduction was more unpopular than it should be in this House of Commons, the vast majority of whose Members had been pledged to economy. He would endeavour to be as brief as possible in stating his reasons for moving the reduction of the establishment. They had again and again urged that it was not possible to reduce expenditure without reducing the number of men. Let them look back on the history of the Army for the last thirty years. Secretaries of State, both Liberal and Conservative, had again and again pledged themselves to economy and had endeavoured to effect it without reducing the personnel, but they had failed. Not only was it impossible to reduce expenditure without reducing the per-
  See (4) Debates, cliii., 1103.
  1442
  sonnel, but the expenditure must increase. In 1872, when Mr. Cardwell introduced his great scheme, the cost per year of a soldier was £111 Now it had risen by steady gradation to £146, an increase of 30 per cent, in thirty odd years. The circumstances of trade tended to increase the cost of a voluntarily recruited army. In his interesting statement, the Secretary for War had pointed out that America had a small army, but he showed how great was its cost, and in comparing the British Army with foreign armies it was well to turn one's eyes to those which were recruited by voluntary enlistment. The expenditure per man in the American army was nearer £400 than £300 a year, and if they examined the various causes which made living more expensive in the United States, they could not but realise that the increase of the expenditure must go on. Therefore if they were to fulfil their pledges to reduce expenditure they must seek to bring it about by reducing the personnel.
  The great heads of expenditure were the Army, the Navy, the Civil Service, and education. The Navy could not be sensibly reduced according to His Majesty's present advisers. Those who believed that the supremacy of the Navy was more vital than the supremacy of the Army, as most of them did, saw a danger, that if this reduction of the Army was not made the expenditure on the Navy might be dangerously reduced by a justly indignant nation. From the Navy they could not expect any great reduction. In the Civil Service no great reductions were likely. On the contrary they saw proposals to increase the expenditure on postmen, and, indeed, on all civil servants. In connection with education they had agreed to feed hungry school children. Therefore if they were to reduce expenditure greatly they must reduce it on the Army. He was reminded that a Resolution had been passed to increase expenditure by hon. Members paying themselves. The present Government and their supporters had been returned as a Party pledged to economy, and if the first visible result of the first session was a proposal to maintain the Navy expenditure at or near its present height, to increase the cost of the Civil Service, to increase pensions, and to pay Members of

  1443
  Parliament £300 a year each, they would he justly condemned. Therefore, the Committee would realise that it was in no hostile spirit to the right hon. Gentleman, whose views so entirely coincided with those urged by Ministerialists generally on the matter of economy, that they pressed all they could for a favourable statement. He did not move this reduction of 10,000 men merely for the purpose of providing a peg on which to hang a discussion. In regard to numbers the Amendment meant what it said, but it was perfectly certain that they could not reduce the Army by 10,000 in this financial year without causing the gravest difficulties as to contracts which had been entered into and arrangements which had been made with men already recruited. The Committee, in discussing the Army Estimates, was always in an awkward position. It was like an audit department which was auditing accounts after the expenditure had been discussed. Therefore the only sensible way to look at discussions in Committee when Amendments were moved calling for great reductions in money or men was to regard them as demands from the Committee—if the Committee were to agree—that the number of men or the amount of money should be taken off the Estimates in the succeeding year. In looking through the debates of the last thirty years he found that again and again when reductions of this kind were moved the representative of the Government of the day had replied, "We cannot do it this year." Admitting that the proposed reduction could not be made this year, what he and his friends asked was that the Government would give a promise to do it next year. He would state the reasons why he thought the reduction was imperative. They must reduce the Army, firstly, because they could not afford to maintain the establishment. The House of Commons would not give the money, and the country would not give the men. Secondly, because in endeavouring to maintain an establishment for which there was neither money nor men sufficient they had persisted in a cheese-paring policy which had involved them in every department of the Army for years past in a course which meant "spoiling the ship for the sake of a ha'porth of tar." It was a matter of common knowledge that the Secretary of State had the
  1444
  greatest difficulty in each successive year filling up the regiments with men of the necessary character and stamina for life in tropical climates. He did not know how many the present Secretary of State could get in the coming year. It might or might not be a bumper year. But those who took an interest in the Army knew that again and again men had been enlisted who were not fit to be enlisted, who were nothing but an expense to the State. That was what was meant when they spoke of "a paper Army." A paper Army the British Army had always to a certain extent been, and when a crash came, as in 1900, they discovered that there were vast numbers at home who were in no sense fitted to serve in a field Army because they were not sufficiently trained, because great numbers had been enlisted under age, and because they would never or at all events for many years, become efficient soldiers. Questions were constantly being asked in the House why So-and-so, a Crimean or Afghan veteran, was allowed to die in the workhouse. It was because his pension was not large enough to live upon. Such things should not be. In an earlier debate it was urged that the War Office should be model employers, and the Secretary of State gave a generous reply to the demand. But if they were going to be model employers to the men in the arsenals, they must also be model employers to the men who fought our battles. In no other country would men who had served their country to the best of their ability, and who had suffered in health, be allowed to die in workhouses. The pension scheme must be increased and so the cost must rise. At Tidworth barracks there was no cricket ground, no gymnasium, and no church available for the men. The Secretary of State might say that such minor matters did not affect the question of efficiency. But they did, for if the authorities did not treat officers and men properly they would not get efficient service. Therefore the cost per man must increase. In the vital matter of war materials they were able to say with sorrow about a year ago what he was thankful they could not say now, that our guns were the most obsolete in the world. The reason given for this was that the War Office could not get money from the Treasury. The Treasury had now provided money for proper guns. It was for these reasons he urged that there should

  1445
  be a reduction in the personnel of the Army. That was the only way to effect economy. He had always contended that the only method was to reduce the Regular Infantry of the Line in these islands. The Cardwell system proposed an equal number of men abroad and at home. If they were going to reduce the Army, it was perfectly true that they might reduce it abroad, but the experience of thirty years had shown that although they might say they would reduce it, public clamour might prevent them from reducing it. People realised that our hold on India involved the very living of Lancashire, and, indeed, most of this country, and therefore they cried out when it was proposed greatly to reduce the foreign garrisons. The Army at home was in a different category. A new school of thought had arisen of which the right hon. Gentleman was a disciple. Those who belonged to that school believed that this country could not be invaded, and that being so, the Army was not wanted for the purpose for which Mr. Cardwell and his advisers wanted it, namely, to defend the country from invasion. They need not argue the question of invasion, for, after all, those who believed that invasion was impossible, generally also believed that the Volunteers should be the people to defend the country. There was general agreement among all Members of the House that the Regular Army was not required to repel invasion, because it would be a most expensive method of doing it. There was, therefore, good reason for reducing the Estimates for infantry in these islands. It was not necessary to have battalions at home to provide foreign battalions with drafts. He often wondered why they went to the expense of adding fourteen battalions to the Regular Infantry of the Line. Those who liked the Cardwell system must see that it spoiled the symmetry of the scheme. It was quite uneconomic and opposed to Mr. Cardwell's own view. He had indicated the methods which in his judgment it would be wise to adopt in order to effect this economy, but he did not care much how the reduction was brought about provided it was made. They had been returned to reduce expenditure on the Army, and they must do it, and do it next year. Someone might say it was unpatriotic to
  1446
  propose to reduce the strength of the Regular Army, but he denied that. He did not believe in that vicarious patriotism which consisted in getting other people "to do our fighting for us whilst we stayed at home." That might be necessary, but it was not patriotic, and they must economise for the sake of the finances of the country. He was persuaded that it was not by exaggerated Estimates or a bloated establishment that they would bring about a reduction, but by a wise economy, and by inculcating in our countrymen a spirit of personal sacrifice. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE, in seconding the Amendment, said for the past four years he had taken part in discussions on a proposed reduction of this kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool had done him the honour of seconding a similar Motion, and he remembered that on one occasion they had the support of the Secretary of State for War upon the grounds upon which they were now supporting this reduction. Perhaps upon this occasion the Committee would excuse him from saying what he had already said publicly in regard to his right hon. friend's services to the State, and his fitness for the high office which he now held. He regretted, how-over, that at the beginning of his speech the other day the Secretary of State for War should have drawn a too satisfactory picture of our expenditure, and that he should have made a comparison with Germany which would not bear investigation. His right hon. friend had said—
  "It may assuage our grief that we do not stand alone. German military expenditure is £31,000,000 as against our £30,000,000 a year.'
  He wished to point out that the expenditure of the British Empire on land forces was not £30,000,000 but nearly £60,000,000 per year, and even under this Vote and the Vote that followed for pay, they would find expenditure outside the £30,000,000 in the form of appropriations-in-aid. The cost of the land forces of the British Empire was double the cost of the land forces of Germany. They had just passed the turn, and there was now a slight improvement, but the defence of the

  1447
  British Empire has very recently cost £100,000,000 a year in peace, of which the land forces cost £60,000,000 and the sea forces £40,000,000. At this moment the land forces were still at about that figure, although next year they might be below it. Even next year at the best he ventured to say that they would get very little change indeed out of £60,000,000 sterling for the land forces. Some hon. Members might find a difficulty in following those figures. There were £30,250,000 for home Votes and allowances from other Departments, with repayments from India and appropriations-in-aid deducted. There was a large number of other appropriations-in-aid besides those from India. There was the "surplus from the war" which the Secretary of State for War would lose next year, and which the £250,000,000 of debt due to lavish and wasteful expenditure had given to the War Office, and which they had got back by selling things at a knock-out price. That had to be allowed for. On the Civil Service Estimates there were £2,000,000 for troops in Uganda and West Africa and other Protectorates, which were military forces organised in battalions and batteries, without counting military police, and which in Germany or in any other country would be on the War Office Vote. For Uganda and West Africa Frontier Force and the like there were £2,000,000 charged on the Civil Service Estimates. Therefore, the Vote under discussion ought to be larger by those charges. This Vote was of course reduced by the garrisons at Halifax and other places, the cost of which was now defrayed by self-governing Colonies. The military expenditure of India was now set permanently at £21,000,000, and this together with the charges for the Crown Colonies and for the self-governing colonies must be considered in any comparison between what we spent and what the German Empire spent. There was also loan money, and we spent not £30,000,000, but nearly £60,000,000 on land forces in profound peace in an Empire which was an Empire of the sea, the command of which was necessary to us. Our power was estimated by foreign Powers not in proportion to our Army strength, but in proportion to the strength of our Fleet. It was the Fleet which made us feared in war and supported our diplomacy in peace Our
  1448
  military services were peculiarly special and necessary, but they were not of a scale and character which justified an Imperial expenditure of £60,000,000 upon the land forces of the Crown. He thought he had carried the Committee with him as far as that matter was concerned. He had not gone so much into detail, but he could assure the Committee that what he had stated would bear investigation. He was aware that the reaching of £60,000,000 depended upon the loan money, and if the loan expenditure in this House was to drop from £3,500,000 to £1,000,000 with a view to its becoming extinct, no doubt the sum of £60,000,000 would not be reached; it would be about £57,000,000. He wished to point out that he had guarded against the mistake which was sometimes made of counting the loan money twice over. He thought there was a general agreement that the expenditure was enormous, and that it was difficult to justify expenditure upon the land forces of the Crown so enormously in excess of the expenditure upon the Fleet. The present Government had accepted Lord Kitchener's policy, and the expenditure in India was now £21,000,000 sterling, a new figure which had risen from £17,000,000 sterling. He was aware that this expenditure showed a slight reduction, but it had been reduced in less proportion than the expenditure upon the Fleet since the adoption of the blue-water view. Many hon. Members had now come over to the blue-water view and had accepted the doctrine of the primacy of the Fleet. Since that time the reduction had been much larger on the Fleet than on the land forces, and there was a danger that if they did not prune down their expenditure upon the land forces an impatient country might fall upon the easiest prey. He thoroughly associated himself with the words of his hon. friend as to the danger and the for-getfulness of practising economy; he believed it would have a fatal repercussion on the numbers of the Fleet. When the enormous cost of the land forces was spoken of there were some who said we were a voluntary country and that conscription accounted for the cheapness of the land forces of Germany in comparison with those of this country. But that question had been threshed out in this House and it had been demonstrated that it did not account for it. Sir Michael

  1449
  Hicks-Beach, as he then was, had said that conscription entered into the account, but that it was not the main item of the account, and that the argument was a fallacious one. With that they all agreed. On behalf of the late Government another Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose death every Member of the House regretted, Mr. Ritchie, twice assured the House in the most solemn way that a large reduction was to take place on this Vote; that it would take the only possible form that it could take, namely, a reduction of the regular infantry of the land forces kept at home. It was true there had been a reduction, but not a very willing one; it was a reduction effected because men could not be obtained. Recruiting fell off, and a reduction was reluctantly made because the Government recognised that the men could not be obtained. But there had not yet been any reduction formally announced on any well-considered plan. He agreed that his right hon. friend was right in not yet having a scheme. It was one of the advantages of the right hon. Gentleman's position to have no scheme, and he regretted that he had to some extent departed from that position by his declaration. One plan to which he had alluded had had various developments—it had suggested itself to all Army reformers—namely, the plan of getting rid of the old linked-battalion system. The right hon. Gentleman had commented very favourably upon the old-fashioned linked-battalion system. This was said to be the Cardwell system, but it was not of the essence of the Cardwell system. Mr. Cardwell, on February 16th, 1871, stated that his plan was—
  "To pass as many men through the ranks as can be done having regard to … the time required to make a man an efficient soldier.… to increase the Militia, and to improve the organisation of the Volunteers; to provide for compulsory service in case of emergency, and to abolish purchase."
  Mr. Cardwell carried all those points except compulsory service, for which he introduced a Bill, but subsequently withdrew it. After Mr. Card-well went his system was gradually filed away until nothing was left. The linked-battalion system was no essential part of the Cardwell scheme. What Mr. Card-well found was seventy-one battalions at home—exactly the same number as we had here now, though we had more abroad. But the seventy-one battalions
  1450
  in 1872 were wanted for home de-fence, because that was before the adoption of the blue-water view. Now that that view had been adopted, was no reduction to be made in these battalions? As to the terms of service, the Secretary of State for War seemed to think that nine years was a short-service system. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We have a short-service system here now, and I am thankful for it."
  Mr. Cardwell would not have called nine years a short-service system. His short-service system was three years for this country, with an extension to six years when the regiments had to go to India. A nine years system was a long-service system. Mr. Cardwell instituted in 1870 a short-service system of three years and six years, and in 1871 he proposed to go further and to extend the short-service principle in order further to increase the Army Reserve. After he died the whole system was reversed. He desired largely to increase the Reserve, and thanks to that alteration in the Service they would have next year a large Army Reserve of 122,000 men. After Lord Cardwell had gone they had Lord Airey's Committee, which reported that it had taken a great deal of evidence on the system of short service and linked battalions, and that the evidence was against the system. A result of the inquiry was that in 1881 the seven years service was adopted, the men to be kept eight years if the seven years expired as usual when they were in India; and a quarter of the men were to be allowed to extend their service for pension. That was entirely against Lord Cardwell's views, and the result had been that for the last few years we had had a long-service instead of a short-service system. They had also in linked battalions the most costly system that could be applied for foreign drafts, and one which was a perfect millstone round our necks when striving to effect economy. The Government would not be able to make large economies in the Army unless they went straight to this point. Linked battalions and nine years service were adopted in the name of India. A nine years service system was too long if a man did not intend to make a trade of the Army. The present system was a monstrous one to keep up, and if hon. Members looked into it they would not support it for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman had

  1451
  supported it as being for the sake of India, but India had been consistently opposed to it. The evidence given on behalf of the Indian Government before the Royal Commission on Indian expenditure pointed out that eight years was two long for a man who proposed to return to civil life; and they expressed the view that the system suited neither the people of India nor us at home. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had told the House that "the impatient man in the street" asked, Why not reduce the home battalions? and he had given as the answer that in military eyes that would be insanity. He could only say that he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had military advisers who took that view. Then the right hon. Gentleman passed on to deal with India, and said—
  "The battalions at home are training schools for the Indian battalions, and you cannot abolish a battalion at home without practically abolishing a battalion abroad.… It is impossible to cut off battalions at home without ruining battalions abroad.… The linking system is thus essential."
  That was not and never had been the view of the Government of India. They had always maintained that the establishment of their own system would be cheaper and more effective. India very largely paid the cost of this system; this country only pretended to pay the cost of it. India was now saddled with a burden of £21,000,000 a year, or an increase of £4,000,000 over seven years ago. In the words of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure—
  "It is the opinion of the Government of India that, the system imposes a heavy charge on Indian revenues without corresponding advantage."
  That was a pretty strong opinion. The Esher Committee did not think the question arguable. In their Report, part 2, they stated—
  "We assume that the double-battalion system, as part of the organisation of the Infantry will be abolished as regards the training and supply of drafts for service abroad."
  The Committee assumed this would be done without argument, and they went on to discuss future schemes. He could not imagine why his right hon. friend should have gone out of his way to preclude the overwhelmingly strong opinion of the Government of India and of the Esher Committee. In The Times last Monday there was an article by the military
  1452
  correspondent, previously the military correspondent of the Westminster Gazette, who knew the opinions of the young scientific soldiers, showing that there were only two ways of reducing cost. One was that of the Secretary of State, by diminishing strength in India, South Africa, and the Mediterranean, and the other that recommended by the mover of the Amendment. On the second point the writer said—
  "The linked system is only a fetish … There is no sanction, either in theory or in practice, for the linking system in any modern or scientific organisation. It is also more expensive."
  As to the question of reduction, one of his hon. friends had suggested that we might leave Malta. Strategic reasons might be given for that course, but the discussion of that question would be out of order. He did not, however, think it was a practical suggestion of reduction. He did not think we were likely to be able to leave Malta. Of course the War Office would get some battalions from South Africa, but they were not likely, in the present state of things, to get a very large number of men from South Africa very soon. He hoped they would, but he did not think it was certain that they would be able to make a very large permanent reduction there. He said "permanent" because there was the risk that they might withdraw a large proportion of the garrison, and then advice might be given as to supposed risks and they might be sent back, which would spoil all the system. India was the only other place, but looking to the unanimity with which the Government of India had expressed their views, he doubted whether any Government, however strong, would be able largely to reduce the number of battalions serving in India. No doubt as matters stood in India they might be able to make a large temporary reduction in the Indian garrison, but how long would it be before they would have to send them back again? He doubted whether, after a great struggle with the Indian Government, they would be able to effect a large permanent reduction of the white garrison in India. If that reduction could not be effected, could they not reduce the number of regular battalions kept in this country in time of peace? That was the issue they raised. Of course every change in system involved a most frightful waste. At the

  1453
  present time the Government of India was buying land and building barracks in new stations under Lord Kitchener's scheme. Then in South Africa millions had been spent on permanent hutting for the accommodation of the large number of troops there. He confessed that he thought the one great source of economy to which they could look was the abandonment of this fetish of the linked battalion system, and the getting rid of a large proportion, or the whole, of the infantry battalions maintained in this country during peace, because the Militia undoubtedly could be made a home service Army on a system that might in time of war replace these regular battalions. He thought that might be done, but if they were not prepared at present to contemplate such a revolutionary scheme then they could fall back upon one of those depot schemes. Those who advised his right hon. friend were not thinking quite so clearly as he would like them to. They certainly had not thought out this view of economy, and in the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman had laid in support of these Estimates he found statements difficult to justify, which bore upon the whole of this question of the future defence of the Empire and the condition of things at home. There were many who cheered the other day some views expressed as to the blue-water view and the possibilities of invasion. There was a statement in the Memorandum as to the handing over of mine-fields from the Army to the Navy. His right hon. friend had a reduction of 1,300 men of the garrison artillery, and 550 officers and men of the Royal Engineers by "transfer of submarine defences to naval control." It was a most astounding fact, showing how much money had been wasted upon this question from time to time, that they had been increasing garrison artillery since the adoption of the blue-water view. It was not a general declaration that had been made against the defences of certain places, and it undoubtedly affected the whole question of the organisation of Volunteers and of the forces that might be maintained at home. When Members were asked to clear their mind upon these questions let them take particular instances. He would give the Secretary of State for War an instance in his own neighbourhood, more or less his own constituency.
  1454
  The Forth Bridge had been newly defended with great gun batteries, as well as with batteries of quick-firing guns upon the island—big guns which, if fired, would reach the Secretary for War's constituency at Haddington or North Berwick. The minefields which were supposed to be an essential portion of that defence, had been taken up, and according to the Memorandum had been replaced by other means of defence. Anyone going over the bridge could see what had been done and it would be found that the Naval defence which was to replace the Military defence did not exist, although it was a place where a raid was undoubtedly possible. There were, of course, places like the cruiser stations at Scilly and Berehaven which would have to be defended by some means or other. He doubted very much whether those defences had been thought out and now that the task had been thrown entirely upon the Army ashore, he trusted that the matter would have the anxious consideration of his right hon. friend. It was a problem which must be combined with that of the Militia and the Volunteers, which forces would have to be worked very closely with the Army in connection with these defences. Take the defence of the Islands of Scilly; the electric light installcation was worked by Volunteers from Cornwall, in time of peace, as if a time of war prevailed. They worked with the Royal Engineers as colleagues, and that system had received a blow. They had now an opportunity of thinking out all these arrangements in connection one with another. When his right hon. friend frankly declared that he had no plan to recommend, he thought that he ought not to have committed himself to the apparent retention of so large a regular force at home in time of peace, by his language with regard to the linked battalion system. The right hon. Gentleman's Militia scheme had his entire sympathy, so far as he could gather its purport from purposely vague words. He gathered that it was a scheme which was inconsistent with the linked battalion system and if the right hon. Gentleman developed that system, it would make the Militia virtually a regular force at home, because the right hon. Gentleman said he should treat the Militia as being akin to the Regulars. He thought

  1455
  the right hon. Gentleman used the words in such away as to suggest that the Militia might be substituted for the Regulars. As to the Volunteers, it appeared that they were delivered into the hands of the Secretary of State because they had no representative on the Army Council by which the right hon. Gentleman was advised, and they had not in the past been in close sympathy with the leading members of that Council. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by asking why it was necessary to go even as far as we had with our Volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman seemed too much inclined to fasten upon rifle clubs, and to speak of the little money which was necessary for the Volunteers. All his remarks were excellent in regard to the Militia, but there was a little too much depreciation of the Volunteers, and although he (Sir Charles Dilke) had always been considered a strong supporter of the "blue water" view, yet he had always believed in accepting from the Volunteers all the services we could get from them, as he believed they would give us that enormous potential supply of men in the event of war to which his right hon. friend made allusion in the noble concluding words of the democratic portion of his speech. He seconded the Motion of his hon. and gallant friend because he believed now, as he had believed for years past, that it was impossible to make a reduction upon expenditure except upon this one Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 194,100, all ranks, be maintained for the said service."—(Major Seely.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I intervene in this debate largely because I have been profoundly interested and, indeed, deeply concerned with the discussion of some of the greater problems of Imperial defence. I do not propose to touch upon those matters of relative detail on which the right hon. Gentleman always speaks with such great knowledge. It would, perhaps, be desirable that I should say something on an Amendment which has for its object the reduction of the number of men and the consequent cost of the Army, quite irrespective, so far as I can gather from the speech of the mover of the Amendment,
  1456
  of the necessity for which that Army exists. I was very much struck, and rather painfully struck, by the view which both the mover and seconder took of the attitude of the country towards military expenditure. They both agreed that, if there was to be a reduction in our general national expenditure, it could only be in the expenditure on the Army. We are all aware that a great many speeches have been made about extravagant and reckless expenditure; but the mover and seconder were both agreed in this, that when you had brought the thing down to a point, there was no hope of making reductions in any department of our public expenditure except the Army. They both stated with unmistakable emphasis that the idea of your Civil Service expenditure's being reduced under this Government or, perhaps, under any Government, and the idea of your Naval expenditure's being reduced, were ideas that had to be abandoned, and if, therefore, reduction had to take place it must take place in the Army. They further admitted, what I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to bear in mind, that the cost of our Army is not due to what is properly called waste at all.
  SIR C. DILKEremarked that what he said was that the constant change of system had had a great deal to do with the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Both the mover and seconder admitted that the cost of the Army depended on the number of men in the Army, and that if you were to reduce the cost of the Army you could do it only by reducing the number of men in the Army. The inevitable inference is that the enormous cost of our Army now—and nobody questions the magnitude of that cost—is not due to wasteful administration. It is due, if to any blameworthy cause at all, to the fact that the recent Government over-estimated the necessity for a large Army, and that the Imperial needs of the country do not require us to spend so much money or to have so large a force. It is a great thing to have those admissions made, because it concentrates discussion. You no longer have those vague charges of reckless and wasteful administration. I do not think those charges have any foundation. I do not

  1457
  deny, of course, that the scrutiny of the right hon. Gentleman opposite may be able to find in future some means of reduction here and there. But now, when we are discussing national expenditure in its larger aspects, let us admit that, if you choose to keep up an Army of this size, you cannot expect a great reduction in your Army estimates. The mover of the Amendment said that in the past the anxious and natural desire of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and successive Governments to keep down the Army Estimates had in many cases spoiled the ship for want of a ha'porth of tar. In other words, if any charge could be made against those Governments, it was a charge of niggardliness in dealing with the various parts of the service and not of excessive expenditure in supporting them.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid there was waste as well—waste caused by changes of policy and in other ways—though he had not dwelt on that part of the subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman means there have been changes of policy as regards, for example, fortifications and matters of that kind, and that that has produced an expenditure of public money for which no return has been received, I agree with him. But the idea that this Administration or any administration can avoid that kind of waste is really an illusion, because that kind of waste is due to a progress and change of ideas. Just as a great business firm finds it necessary to scrap its old machinery when new ideas make themselves felt and new machinery is required, so it will be found that, as military science changes and develops with the inevitable progress of time, some expenditure which was thought necessary will prove to have been wasteful, and some fortifications, once thought absolutely needful for the defence of our coasts, will be abandoned for better means of defence. You cannot blame any Government for that, or any body of military opinion. Military men are not greater geniuses than other men. You cannot expect Governments to be more farsighted in their views of what is going to happen than the majority of their fellow citizens. I want to keep, if I can, to this rather narrow but all
  1458
  important question of the number of the troops we require and the cost they involve. Therefore, we may take it for granted that those who come to this House and say that economy in the national expenditure is necessary mean, in the first place, that that economy must be economy in the Army Estimates, and not either in the Navy Estimates or in the Civil Service Estimates, and, secondly, that economy in the Army Estimates must, broadly speaking, take the shape of a great diminution in the number of men we pay and provide for. If that is granted, I confess I listened with some regret to the view of the mover and seconder of this Amendment, who seemed to think that the country is incapable of appreciating the arguments one way or the other for keeping up the Army, and that a justly indignant nation would rush at the Estimates pell-mell, would tear out at random some half-dozen sheets, and would not ask whether this or that is required, but would say, "We do not mean to pay for that, and there is an end of it." I do not believe that the people of this country are so unpatriotic as the mover and seconder of the Amendment would make out. I believe that while they are, of course, anxious that military expenditure should be diminished—and everybody must admit that that enormous burden should be lightened if it is possible—they are perfectly prepared to consider in a reasonable spirit the actual necessities of the Empire and to meet the necessary expenditure of the country. Therefore I put aside all this idea that economy must take place simply because the country desires economy, without considering whether economy carries with it dangers which the country would pay anything to avoid. What we have got to consider in a reasonable spirit is what the necessities of the country really are with regard to the number of men. I am not going to join in any discussion as regards Mr. Cardwell's intention or Mr. Cardwell's schemes. I am not going into the history presented to us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or into any of the details to which he has referred. I will take only the very broadest view of our military position, and perhaps I may do so with the less

  1459
  diffidence because it so happens that, as I believe, I was the first responsible Minister of any Government, who, after discussion in the Defence Committee, ventured to lay down in public the proposition that the real and great necessity for which we keep an army was India. There are other very important purposes, but the dominant purpose of the British Army is, not home defence, but Indian defence. And why? Because in India, and in India alone, we have a great dependency with a land frontier. It is, of course, a commonplace of discussion; but it is a commonplace that is sometimes forgotten, and it was forgotten for the moment by so great an authority as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He said, "I accept to the full the blue-water school. I am an absolute adherent of that school." Therefore he seemed to infer that we did not require a great army for oversea purposes.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Oh, no. I said nothing at all about the oversea army. I estimated a very large reserve. I mentioned 122,000 men next year, and I mentioned the necessity of having cadres to put them into.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well. But if India is, as I firmly believe it is, the dominant factor, though, of course, not the sole factor, which ought to determine the burden of military expenditur in this country, I should like to know whether this House is going to decide seriously that there ought to be a diminution in our forces until they have clear view before them of what a great war in defence of India may mean. Of course I may be told, I am not sure that a phrase in the admirable speech of the Secretary for War did not imply it, that we may ignore the Indian difficulty because the great Power with whom alone we might imagine ourselves at war in connection with India is at this moment involved in great domestic difficulties, and certainly does not desire to quarrel with us on any subject, least of all on the subject of the Indian frontier. Of course that is so. Happy relations exist now between us and Russia, and we may hope that all the reforms in that
  1460
  great country will tend to strengthen the bonds of amity between us, and to diminish the power of any school, if such a school there be, which looks forward to an attack on India as a thing to be indulged for the gain it may directly bring, or as a threat to be held over us in our diplomatic relations with other countries. We may hope that the progress of social changes in Russia will diminish that school, if it exists, and we may look forward, with sanguine hope, not only to peace, but to a good understanding on a most solid basis of peace on this subject. But that is not quite enough. Germany and Russia are most friendly to each other, but has the German headquarters staff not to consider the possibility of trouble arising between Germany and Russia? Is not the same thing true of every country in Europe which has a military neighbour? Of course it must be true, so long as the European world is constituted on its present lines. So long as any country has a vast potential army, so long every other country must see that its defences can be brought up to a level which will meet any possible emergency, and that without any derogation from the
  genuine feeling of amity which may bind them close to their neighbours. Therefore we must discuss this, not from the point of view of our present happy relations with Russia, nor even with a view to the increased friendship which I hope will grow up. We must consider this as a military problem between two countries whose territories lie in close proximity, and who have to prepare against any unforeseen emergency which may disturb the present friendly relations between them. That is the question; and if the House accepts that line of reasoning, it must be plain that what we have to consider in discussing the Army Estimates is, in the first place, what striking force you require for an immediate emergency, what force you require to send out to India the moment difficulties occur, and, thirdly, by what means you are going to expand your Army so as to meet the necessities of a prolonged war should a prolonged war occur. I certainly do not lay down in this House the idea that we cannot diminish the number of our regular troops at home.

  1461
  I am not going to make myself responsible for any such policy. But I say that any reduction of our troops, whether at home or elsewhere, must be part of a general scheme which secures us an expansible Army, a power of increasing our effective fighting force to a far larger extent than the regular troops which we are asked to vote to-day, and which would enable us to face with equanimity the prospect of not merely a year's war, but of a war which might be extended for a much longer period. Now, how are you going to do that? That is the real question of national defence; and what solution can we find for it? I think myself that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was very well advised in his opening speech in not committing himself to anything. I think he is well advised to revolve in his mind all the suggestions that may be made. I think, however, that certain propositions may be laid down, irrespective of any particular plan, which will hold good. The problem is how can you expand your Army so that it will be able to meet. European troops in the field when that is required. In case of a war in defence of the North-West Frontier of India, I do not believe any greatly larger force than that which we actually have would be required for, say, a year—at any rate, for a considerable period; but I think such a war may require all we now have, or, at all events, a very large fraction of what we now have. But in the meanwhile do you think that in those months of resting which the very peculiar strategic position of India gives you, you have the machinery now for creating that larger Army which would certainly be required if hostilities were to go on, as in the great wars of the 18th century, far beyond the limits of one, two, or even three years? There are certain things which you can create, relatively speaking, rapidly, but there are other things which you cannot; and it is in the difference of those two things that the whole argument turns. I believe that in a year you can turn a half-drilled soldier into a well-drilled soldier. I do not doubt it. I have always looked with sympathy upon those schemes which would enable us to familiarise the youth of this country with the use of the rifle. That is one of the things which every soldier has to learn
  1462
  It is a thing which can be easily taught to the youth of the country, it does not require elaborate drill, and it gives an amount of knowledge which may really be of use to the possessor to enable him to take part in the defence of the country. But rifle clubs by themselves are no use. Even Volunteers as Volunteers are no use on the North-Western Frontier of India. They are only of use if the knowledge is turned to account in a different capacity. You therefore require, as I think, as raw material for the Army which you have to improvise in the first year of the war, a certain number of Volunteers. You may have, if we succeed in developing any system at all on the lines which Lord Roberts has suggested, a large body of persons qualified without much greater training to be fairly efficient shots. I believe if you have that material, so far as the soldiers are concerned, you might have all you wanted; but you cannot improvise officers, artillery, artillerymen and staff. Therefore, if you are really to have an expansible Army, and it is only by having it you can have the smallest hope of safely reducing a single man—if now you are to have an expansible Army you must remember that it carries with it the obligation to pro vide and train in time of peace, officers, artillerymen, the requisite field staff and the skilled gunner who cannot be turned out with the best will in the world all at once merely because a great national necessity comes upon you suddenly. And what I would earnestly press upon Gentlemen like the mover and seconder of this reduction and upon the whole House and the country at large, is this—by all means, if you will, and with the additional light which the investigations of the Defence Committee will throw on the number of men required for Indian defence, a matter of investigation not completed when I ceased to be a member of that Committee—let the country remember that when they have thought out what the number of men is and the different periods corresponding to your length of hypothetical wars they might possibly find it in their power to make some reduction in the Regular troops; I do not say of 10,000 men referred to by the hon. Member. But do not let

  1463
  them commit themselves to the precise number until they see the whole plan before them. Do not let them commit themselves to a reduction in the machine which is undoubtedly efficient until they see, at least in outline and in something like working order, that supplementary organisation which is most difficult to create. I do not blame the Secretary of State for War for not having it at his fingers' end, and I shall not blame him if he cannot produce it next year, or even the year after. It is a great problem; but it is one which should be settled before any reduction in the existing force is made. I know the right hon. Gentleman opposite finds himself in the position which every one of his predecessors has occupied before him; he is sure to be the target for every kind of criticism by those who, whatever admiration they may have for his ability and administrative capacity, think that they have a better Army scheme than he. After all, there are a dozen Army schemes possible. He can only choose one of them, and the devotees of the other eleven are sure to join hands in denouncing him. Do not let him be discouraged by that unfortunate position; Others have had to endure it before him, and I am sure his philosophy will be equal to any strain of that kind. But I will make an appeal to the House and the country—let them remember that merely to reduce the Regular Army, to make no provision for the skilled element which cannot be improvised, is to spend money which will be of very small value in time of strain and stress. Let them have the Regular Army as small as you think you can safely make it, and in addition let them have all the skilled elements which require long training prepared for such expansion as you think the needs of the Empire may require. If the right hon. Gentleman will only devote his abilities to working out on those broad lines some plan which will meet the case of a great war, I for my part shall not be disposed to criticise him because his plans do not fit in with this or that scheme of this or that Army reformer; I for my part shall be content with any solution of the big problem with which he has to deal. I am sure he understands what the elements of the problem are and I am confident that he will devote himself, not
  1464
  merely with assiduity and impartiality, but with determination to making it a great national success.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): No Minister in charge of Estimates has ever had less cause to complain of the way in which his proposals have been received than I have, both last week and to-night. The attitude of Members of this House has been both kindly and sympathetic. I laid down last week what I will repeat, that I think I should be extremely unwise were I to go even a little way in the direction of committing myself to definite plans and schemes until I have had some little time to think and work them out. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that these things are very difficult, and things on which you can hardly take too much time, because a mistake—as has been pointed out—brings down an avalanche of expense in its wake, and the result is you find yourself with money thrown away which might have been used, had you had a common policy, for a good purpose. That is why I appeal to my hon. friends on this side to join with me in an endeavour as far as possible, by taking time, to take this whole question out of the rut of Party controversy, to get both sides to think and work together in an endeavour to establish something like continuity of policy, whereby we may avoid those great fluctuations which bring about wastages of public money. Having said that, I do not in the slightest degree complain of the line taken by the mover and seconder of the Motion. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite a little unduly blamed this Motion. My hon. friend the mover explained that he knew perfectly well that you could not knock off 10,000 men on this year's Estimates at a stroke and so plunge things into confusion. He was pointing to the future; and although that is not in form the custom, what I understand he means is to ask what is my attitude towards the question of reduction of personnel in the time that is to come. While I have in view the considerations which were urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—and I agree as to the absolute necessity of studying the problem with reference to the needs of the Empire at home and

  1465
  abroad—I own I am profoundly impressed by the danger in which our Army organisation stands because of what the public regard as its extravagance. If there is one thing that was made plain in the course of the recent discussions throughout the country it is the desire on the part of the public that they should be required to spend less upon naval and military organisation. Now that is not a mood which it does to neglect or to treat as a light matter. It is a serious matter, because if you neglect it the trend of opinion against increased cost may some day break out and force you into violent courses. It is because I wish to avoid violent
  courses that I desire to recognise that feeling, and to meet as far as is in my power the desire of those who ask for an Army upon a less extravagant basis than the present. I am quite aware that this is not a matter about which in principle there is really any controversy. Everybody desires economy in Army administration. Everybody has been working for it for some time past. But I do feel that it is possible that if we look at that organisation a little more closely than has hitherto been done, we may find there are possibilities of economy which have
  been overlooked. It is quite true that economy depends in large measure upon policy. If you look at home, I have at all events a hope of considerable economies there. If you take broadly the position in this country, what is it? Suppose you mobilise, suppose you put all your reserves into the field, and suppose you take into account your Militia and add these together, you have a force in this country for mobilisation of something like 330,000 men. Whether that is a sufficient fighting force or not is quite another matter with which I will deal later. My point is this. Suppose you take as the standard of your striking force a three Army corps standard, that would mean about 130,000 men. That gives you a surplus of 200,000.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is that allowing for the mobilisation of the troops abroad?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes; for if you mobilise your forces abroad you do not
  1466
  have to provide drafts. The question I put is this—and I put it in order to show how much necessity there is for the closest consideration of this matter—Is it possible to cut down that surplus of 200,000 men by reorganisation? I am not pledging myself in any way; but I put it to the Committee here as a plan for dealing with the home forces only, quite apart from linked battalions or anything else, whether by reorganisation we could get a force at least as efficient as the force we have at the present time and yet make large reductions. It is because I feel there is a strong desire for economy in the country that I say we must consider reductions of personnel, because without such reductions you cannot get economy in Army expenditure. I have, therefore, great sympathy with this Motion; and I propose to devote myself in the next year to the closest scrutiny of the question. I do not desire to put forward any scheme or plan, even if I had one. I ask the Committee not to tie my hands. I ask them to leave me free. I ask them not to say, "You must cut down 10,000 men by such a day," because, though I might be able to do that and more, I may find I have not been able to think out the thing by that time. But I give the assurance that I will do my very best to work out the problem of reorganisation in such a way as may lead possibly to such a reduction. Now I come to some general considerations which the Leader of the Opposition put forward. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot proceed a single step in this matter unless you attempt something like a scientific determination of what Army—I do not like to use the term "striking force"—of what Army you should make available for attack. It must be realised that in the case of the defence of an Empire like ours defence often means attack. Just as in naval strategy you may have, in order to defend yourself, to seek out your enemy and attack him before he is able to strike at you. Therefore, you want to have your Army on as mobile and efficient a basis as possible. Then the size of the Army has to be determined. But behind that lies the biggest factor of all, and that factor is policy. That is not a thing about which soldiers can calculate. Still, the size of the Army depends on whether your policy is one thing or another. If you are in good relations with a particular

  1467
  nation, if you have reason for thinking that that happy state of things will continue, it is obvious that you may make different dispositions of your forces, and provide for different necessities which you would be unable to do were the situation different. Therefore, it is not absolutely essential in considering what you have to do to provide for every possible contingency, because if you were to attempt to do that you would make yourself bankrupt as a nation, and so stop all chance of social reform. Social reform must be provided for. It makes an urgent call upon us. Accordingly, your policy, be it for the Army or for the Navy, must be a policy of probabilities. Policy must determine your strategy and the provisions you make for your necessities. That is a fact which we have recognised to some extent in the case of the Navy. You must also, of course, consider the situation in India. But there military policy has changed very considerably as changes in general policy have taken place. It is not true to say that the Indian establishment has always been what it is at the present time. The Penjdeh incident created a revolution in the military situation in India. For the last twenty years the situation in India has remained unchanged but before that time it was entirely different. But I am not laying down any policy in regard to India. I see that the Indian Press, misled by an abbreviated telegraphic report of what I said the other day, took up the notion that I had laid down some policy in regard to India which might or must entail a diminution of the Indian Army. I laid down nothing in regard to India. I merely stated the conditions of the problem that are to be considered. But I say even in regard to India that your plans for the Army must change as policy and the conditions arising out of it change. The same thing is true of South Africa, of Egypt, and of other parts of the Empire. You cannot decide on the size of your Army wholly apart from this important question of policy. Therefore, while I am on the side of the Leader of the Opposition that you must define your striking force and define it scientifically, I must add that the question of policy cannot be absolutely excluded from the consideration of the question of what you are to do. I pass now from these points to the points specifically raised by the mover and seconder of the Amend-
  1468
  ment. They said things which seemed to indicate that they had a scheme of their own. I may be wrong about that, but it looks like it when anybody talks about diminishing battalions at home and not diminishing battalions abroad. My hon. and gallant friend who moved the Amendment appears to be opposed to diminishing the forces abroad.
  MAJOR SEELY: I said you probably would not be able to do so, while you could diminish the forces at home.
  MR. HALDANE: That is a matter upon which I can say that I have not a closed mind. But I cannot but be influenced by the very considerable preponderance of military opinion on the subject. After all, men like Sir Evelyn Wood and Lord Roberts cannot be disregarded. It was only this week that I had an opportunity of talking on the subject with Lord Roberts, and he authorised me to say that in his opinion the depot is not to be compared with the battalion in the matter of producing or training troops for service abroad. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Secretary for War, is of a different opinion. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean agrees with the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. and gallant friend who moved the Motion will not commit himself on the subject. I do not want to commit myself in the matter. But I do say that I am rendered nervous about these plans for reducing battalions at home without reducing battalions abroad when I find that military expert opinion is against the proposal that depot training might take the place of battalion training. The Cardwell scheme seems to me to have been much misunderstood. What Mr. Cardwell wanted to do was to give battalion training to the troops that were to go abroad. His plan really was to have two battalions in each regiment, one of which should remain at home and be a training school for the men who came from the depot where they were collected, and having gone through two years of training were to proceed to the battalion abroad, joining it as trained soldiers and undergoing a still further process of seasoning. There was another purpose that Mr. Cardwell had in view. That was by means of a short service with the colours to get reserves, which filled up, on mobilisation, the battalions at home

  1469
  and made a second battalion liable for service abroad. Then in time of war, under his scheme, you might improvise provisional battalions for service abroad and may even use the Militia battalions for the purpose. But that is a subject upon which I do not desire to dogmatise. I should like to be given time for its consideration. But be that as it may, you have two great schools of thought on the subject. One holds that battalion training is the only good training for foreign service. The other holds that depot training is sufficient. I am not pledged to anything. I but state the difficulties that crowd upon me when considering the subject. But there is one thing which must weigh with me, and that is that India will not take our drafts until the men reach the age of twenty. That is founded on a great deal of good sense, and on medical and military expert reasons. On the other hand, you cannot train the men for two years in the depot. It is only in the battalion that you can train them. For the short training in the depot you must have recruits of nineteen. But you cannot get recruits at that age. You can neither take recruits as young as boys are on leaving school nor get them as old as nineteen, when they are learning a trade, and perhaps married. Then, again, if I were to listen to the blandishments of the depot advocates and give up lightly the notion of linked battalions, what sort of depots should we require? I think the right hon. Gentleman himself was of opinion that you could only give depot training in large depots, such as the Marines have at Walmer. But these large depots would cost a good deal of money; a couple of millions would not be a large sum to spend on the provision of these large depots—I doubt whether you could do it for less—and these are not the days when a War Minister has a couple of millions to spend lightly. I am very indisposed to embark on a new scheme which would entail such an expenditure, which if the plan did not turn out well would be wasted. Therefore I do not look with favour on the proposition that I should begin my reductions of battalions at home without having first considered the question whether I could also reduce battalions abroad. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, alluded to the Cardwell scheme as
  1470
  having broken down because the number of battalions abroad is eighty-six and the number at home is seventy-one. But it has not broken down; it is only in form that that discrepancy exists. It is true there are only seventy-one battalions at home and eighty-five abroad; but in the case of fourteen of the battalions serving abroad seven are in India and South Africa, and seven more are on what is called short tour—that is to say, in the Mediterranean, at Malta, Gibraltar, or some place close at hand where the drafts go out, and whence they feed the battalions in foreign places with which they are linked. Therefore the seven battalions on short tour are treated as battalions at home. What is the objection to that?
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: In the case of Malta there is sickness.
  MR. HALDANE: That may be a reason for bringing down the size of the garrison at Malta; but the point remains that these seven battalions on short tour near at hand are feeding battalions just as much under present conditions as they would have been in the days of Mr. Cardwell. It is enough for me to say that there is a large field for consideration and inquiry in these matters. I do not desire to approach it with my hands tied, and, therefore, I deprecate the notion of anybody's moving a reduction of 10,000 either for this or for next year. I may be able to do as well or better, but what I do promise the Committee is that I will do my best. I spoke of continuity, and I feel that in embarking upon this matter I am really carrying out, so far as reductions are concerned, the policy which was inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. I think he recognised as much as I do that there is a great surplus in the British Army at the present time. In 1896–97 there were some 50,000 fewer men under this Vote A than there are at the present day, and what has really caused the excess is the dimensions to which our Army was swollen by the war and the difficulty of getting those dimensions down quickly. So that you have a very large margin left of increase over

  1471
  what you had before the war. The Committee will notice from my statement that I have reduced the number of men this year by 5,300 already. I was able to do that by some changes that I made myself, and I inherited some reductions—the bulk of them, and I think they were very wise ones—from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. He reduced the troops in the West Indies very substantially, he reduced the troops in Bermuda, Malta, and Gibraltar, and, by virtue of the arrangement made in regard to Halifax, in Canada. There is, too, a reduction in South Africa, which, I think, is partly his and partly mine, and there are some miscellaneous reductions. The result is that since August 1st last we have, I think, in continuity of policy made a reduction of 5,300. I do not say that we can assume with any certainly' that that reduction will be kept up, but I do say it shows that the pressure which the war produced, the swelling of the garrisons which took place, is beginning to go down, and it ought not to be difficult to get something very substantial off the large increase of 50,000 which has taken place since the period of the war. The main point we have to consider is: What is the best way to approach this problem? I venture respectfully to suggest that the best and most rapid course is to take time over it. Do not let us alarm the public outside by sensational promises of reduction. After all, if public opinion is against you, you get a tremendous swing round very quickly. It is only three or four years, since sitting on the benches on the opposite side of the House, one wondered whether the balance between the Opposition and the then Government would ever be altered or redressed. I always felt that one did not know how quickly the change would come. Now the wonder is all the other way. But that period may not last; and if the public were to lose confidence in our Army and foreign policy there might be a swing round just as violent as there was on that occasion, with the result that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, even though they acepted our principles, which I believe would remain theirs, would be driven by the force of public opinion hastily to get up the
  1472
  strength of the Army. It is just to avoid that change, and to get a settled policy which should be the policy of the two Parties, that one is anxious to avoid making sensational undertakings and promises that might embarrass one if at some particular time one could not bring off the figure which had been promised. Therefore, while my whole sympathy is with the spirit in which my hon. and gallant friend moved his Motion, I do not wish to commit myself to it, by a reduction of battalions at home, or any particular kind or way. I wish to have my hands free to work out the matter in a spirit of which I trust I have given an earnest to the Committee. I think I have covered most of the points put to me. One or two questions were addressed to me by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. He spoke of the Volunteers, and it seemed to have struck him that in what I said I was rather depreciating the utility of the Volunteer force. Such was not my intention. What I pointed out was this—and it had a close bearing on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition—that in this country we are in a peculiar position. On the Continent the word "mobilize" flashes across the wires, and the troops may be in contact with the enemy in ten days; the result is that it is absolutely necessary that their reserve, the men whom they are to bring up, should be men in such a high state of efficiency that they can be immediately available But, as I pointed out last week, we from our island position, and so long as we keep up our naval strength, are more happily situated; we shall always have an interval in which to pull ourselves together. We have got our Regular troops available for the first attack, and there is time, such as no other nation, has, in which to bring up the strength of our Army, if only there is power of expansion behind. It is quite true that for fighting across the seas at a distance we require a more mobile and ready Army, though smaller, than any other great Power; that has to be borne in mind. But it is also true that, when we come to expansion behind, we shall have more interval than any other nation, in which to prepare ourselves, and to get what exists potentially into actual and

  1473
  fighting shape. In other words, our reserves need not be in the first instance highly trained men.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not the officers?
  MR. HALDANE: I will come to that point. The men's training may be divided into two parts—one which will give what I may call an elementary training; and the other, which may come into operation if you devise means to that end, which will convert men who are partially trained, and whom you ought to have in large numbers, into soldiers fit to be put down against Regulars. It is because of that condition that I think you ought to aim at getting quantity rather than quality in the reservoir from which you are to expand. You will have time in which to turn your quantity into quality. Nobody values more than I the splendid work that has been done in Volunteer organisation; and I hope that work will not diminish but be maintained; but I should like to put alongside with it other and less formal organisations which may fill up your reservoir and make larger the quantity of men whom, if hostilities break out, you may turn into fighting shape to support your Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman says that that requires officers. It does, and it requires artillery, and, above all, a skeleton organisation. No such organisation can be perfect unless it be thought out on the basis of what use it will be on mobilisation. If a scheme of the kind is possible, and I have thrown it down to be considered and thought out, it becomes peculiarly important when we come to the question of possible expansion. It is clear that it must be worked out on the basis of mobilisation for war and the fighting efficiency of your force when you get it, and on no other basis. It will require that we shall provide some kind of reserve of officers; it will require that We shall make new avenues for the training of our officers, that we shall find some means of keeping a highly skilled class of person who may, perhaps, make the business the second branch of his profession, but taking it seriously, giving a certain time to it, prepare him-
  1474
  self to take his part in training his troops when the necessity arises. That will have to be considered, and on a considerable scale, and that is one of the things that goes to the root of your power of expansion in time of war. What is most important is that there should be the skeleton organisation. It seems to me that you can reduce the dimensions of your striking force and Regular Army to their strict scientific proportions if only you have this power of expansion behind. I go back to my old illustration of three Army Corps as a maximum, and, taking that as a maximum, we have a surplus of artillery—which I think is going to play a more important part in the wars of the future—to the extent of thirty-five batteries in excess of that standard. I am not saying that with a view of intimating that it is a thing you should lightly abolish, but I do say that there you have something which comes to be a real factor in your power of expansion. It is not always necessary to keep these up to their full and complete organisation so long as you have the officers and trained men who are requisite, but, at any rate, it gives you a reserve in artillery which you may take into account in making your plans for the future. But into these things I do not desire to enter further than to answer the questions and the criticisms that have been addressed to me. I say again to the Committee that I have the spirit of this Motion thoroughly at heart, that I accept the feeling that there is a general desire that we should reach a state of things in which the figures of the Army and Navy should not be of those formidable dimensions that they are at the present time. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant friend for telling me that he does not really mean to strike 10,000 men off the Army in the present year, or even, under all circumstances, I should take it, next year. [Cries of "Yes."] Possibly more, possibly less, according to the necessity. My hon. and gallant friend, I am sure, does not wish to tie my hands beforehand, under all conceivable circumstances, when I tell him I am putting all the strength I can, and that the Army Council with me are devoting their whole energies into working these things out on a basis which will secure what he desires. W recognise

  1475
  that the Army is in danger of unpopularity if we cannot get these Estimates within a reasonable compass; and if I am not pledging myself to any particular thing it is not because I am not as zealous as my hon. and gallant friend, but because I feel that any pledge must involve tying myself in advance to some scheme, to some plan which I have not yet thought out, and which it may be desirable to give in some different form from that which was contemplated at starting. Subject to that, I have no quarrel with my hon. and gallant friend for raising this question and discussing it in the friendly spirit and with the kindly temper that he has done on this occasion.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid there were certain matters in connection with the speech made by the Secretary for War with which he, for one, was somewhat disappointed. They had heard a great deal both in and out of Parliament about the great extravagance in public funds, and that large sums of money had been wasted by the War Office. They had now a complete change of Government and a complete change of Party, and he had fully expected, perhaps in the innocence of his heart, that when they had a Government pledged to economy and efficiency, and one which the Prime Minister said was a Government of retrenchment, they would, at all events, have had a certain amount of reduction in the Army Estimates. He remembered that in the last Parliament there were a large number of Members who were always stating that the money spent upon the Army had been most extravagantly spent, and that there was a large waste, and so he fully expected that the Secretary for War would have been able to find even in a few short months where all this waste was occurring, and that he would have been able to make a very considerable reduction in the expenditure. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, it had been found that there was not this wasteful extravagance which some people had imagined. He should not be doing justice or credit to the right hon. Gentleman who so ably filled the office of Minister for War if he did not say that he had been unable to find any such wasteful extravagance, for he believed that if it had existed he would have been able to place his finger upon the spot. He had put down
  1476
  a Motion for reduction mainly to obtain some further explanation from the Minister for War upon the subject of the linked battalions. Year after year he had come to this House and listened to the explanations which War Ministers on both sides had given for continuing the linked battalion system, and he was as convinced as ever that the system was wrong. It was said that it was absolutely necessary that there should be one battalion at home for every battalion abroad, but they had discovered that this was not the case. There were battalions abroad which were called home battalions, and the whole system broke down in practice. The reason given by the Prime Minister last year or the year before for maintaining this number of battalions was that they required this number of men as a skeleton to be made up by the Reserves, and that the number at home was sufficient to bring up the strength of the striking force to three Army corps. The chief reason urged for the necessity of three Army corps was the defence of the North West frontier of India. The hon. Member for Cardiff, in a speech last session, was particularly severe on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, and he should like to hear the hon. Member's opinions of the state of affairs at the present time. The hon. Member then took the view that the three Army corps at home were not necessary to send to India, and he quoted the opinions of officers on this very subject. For the sake of argument he (the speaker) would admit that these three Army corps were required for the defence of the North West frontier of India, but the Secretary of State for War had stated that in his opinion Army expenditure must to a great extent depend upon policy. Was there now the same fear of invasion of the North West frontier as there was two years ago? He did not believe anyone either inside or outside of this House who had studied the question would say that the North West frontier was in the same danger of attack as it was two years ago. He most respectfully urged the abandonment of the idea that this linked battalion system should remain as a skeleton by which they were to send three Army corps abroad, because he thought the expenditure upon it was excessive. He did not for one moment admit the principle that they must have one battalion at home and one abroad

  1477
  for that scheme had broken down, and the Secretary of State for War appeared to think that if they did away with the linked battalion system, they must go in for depôts for training the men. Surely there was another way out of the difficulty, Would it not be possible to have regiments consisting of two battalions instead of three battalions, and then two of those battalions could serve abroad and one at home. He thought this appeared to be a particularly good time for bringing about such a change. He was in no way hostile to the enlistment for nine years with the colours and three with the Reserves which was now in force, but nevertheless he thought it was an opportune moment for the Secretary of State for War to consider whether or not the change he had suggested was a good one. If they enlisted men for nine years with the colours and three with the Reserves they would require fewer drafts for abroad, and they would not require changing quite so frequently. Therefore he hoped they would be able to reduce the number of battalions at home. The Secretary of State for War had stated that he had already considered this question, and that he had an open mind. Under those circumstances he did not wish to press the matter any further. There was, however, another point which he thought was a great argument in favour of the reduction of the number of battalions at home. There were certain people who held strongly that those battalions would be absolutely useless unless they had long experience of military discipline. They must accept the circumstances as they were, and they must recognise that the people of this country would not go on spending so much money on the Army. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies a few years ago stated that he was going to raise the flag of economy, and he trusted that he would now use his efforts with the Government in that direction. It was absolutely imperative that the country should spend less money upon the Army, and they could only achieve economy by reducing the number of Regular battalions at home. If this large body of troops was to be of any use, there would have to be with the men a large supply of highly skilled officers and sergeants. He had faith enough in his own countrymen to believe that if this country
  1478
  happened to be in a tight place, and had to make another great effort, there would be hundreds of thousands of men who would say, "Put a rifle in our hands, and teach us how to use it." It was no use doing this if there was nobody to teach them how to use the rifles. They knew what happened in the case of the South African War. When this country got into difficulties, so far from the Auxiliaries having extra trained men, they found that every officer, sergeant, and non-commissioned officer in the Auxiliary Forces was taken away to fill up the ranks of the commissioned and non - commissioned officers. He was himself for six weeks in a Yeomanry brigade in South Africa, which must have cost the country a considerable amount of money, and he had no hesitation in saying that they might just as well have stayed at home, and the money spent upon them was simply thrown down the gutter, because there was not an officer properly qualified to teach them anything. If they wished that there should be behind the Regular Army a strong body to support them, they must make up their minds to spend more money on retaining specially good officers, whom, in the day of trial, they would be able to draft among these Auxiliary Forces, so that, in the course of a few months, they would be able to make them into competent soldiers. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question, and if it was found that the long service system depleted the Reserves, surely it would be possible to adopt a shorter service. He never could see why they should have a hard and fast rule for recruiting. After the speech of the Secretary of State for War, he would not move the reduction of which he had given notice, but would content himself with impressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of having with the Reserves more officers and sergeants in order to help the Auxiliaries.
  LORD DALMENYsaid he asked the House to exercise that clemency which it invariably accorded to a Member of Parliament who was making his maiden speech. His object in rising was to say what he could for the very much abused so-called Cardwell system. In his opinion the Cardwell system at the present time

  1479
  was the best that had yet been brought forward, and under that system they got more battalions than under any other. At present there were seventy - one battalions at home and eighty-five abroad. If they adopted the deôdt system, which he supposed was the only alternative, the cost would be very little less, and it would also have many disadvantages which the present system had not. In the first place they must have a larger number of men for the depôts, and they must take away at once 27,000 men from the battalions in this country. It was generally agreed that to supply drafts for 80,000 men abroad, 27,000 men would be required in depots in this country, and that would leave them with 37,500 non-commissioned officers and men. That would mean that there would be forty-four battalions instead of seventy-one in this country. It seemed to him that if they reduced their battalions they would be doing something that it would be very difficult to replace. The Leader of the Opposition had said that there were some things it was impossible to improvise, and one of these was a fighting force with proper cadres in time of war. Each of these battalions, however skeleton they might be, could absorb a great number of recruits and a vast amount of raw material of every kind. It would be agreed that they had not too many cadres during the late South African war, and he thought it would be injudicious to reduce the number they had at the present time. Depôt training was not such good training as battalion training. Depot training was good for teaching drill, but it was generally agreed by experts of all kinds that battalion training was infinitely superior in the way of teaching officers field (service. The Cardwell system was also the best for recruiting. The territorial system—small single county areas—was one of the foundations of his plan. He believed that in the last thirty years, and more especially since the end of the South African war, the territorial feeling had been growing every year. Under the depot system, in order to join together a large number of battalions, they had to make the area very much larger. If that was the case he thought recruiting would fall off. Under the depot system they would have, for instance, drafts of men coming directly from the Black Watch to
  1480
  the Gordon Highlanders, with a consequent loss of esprit de corps. The territorial feeling of the county was for its own particular regiment, and when they lost that they would find that recruiting would fall off largely. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool wanted to reduce the Army by 10,000 men. He did not think the hon. and gallant Member had any particular scheme for the reduction of the Army. He simply wanted 10,000 men done away with. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear; set to work.] He dared say it was time that they were done away with, but to move a reduction of 10,000 without saying whether they were to be taken from the cavalry, the artillery, or the infantry, was like putting a stick into a very intricate machine when it was working.
  MAJOR SEELY: I said the infantry.
  LORD DALMENYsaid he was as much in favour of a reduction of expenditure in the Army as any hon. Gentleman, but if they economised suddenly they would find that it was more expensive in the long run. They must give the Secretary of State for War time to make sure of his new policy. The noble Lord opposite seemed surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to bring forward a policy at once. He did not think there had ever been a Secretary of State for War who had brought forward a policy at once—at all events a successful or economical policy. Army expenditure depended on policy. The best way to economise was by reducing the forces abroad, and that reduction rested not so much with the Secretary of State for War as with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could assure them that there need be no fear of trouble on the north-western frontier of India, then the forces in India might be reduced. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies could assure them in regard to affairs in South Africa, then a reduction in the forces there might also be effected. During the short time he was in the Army he became keenly conscious of the alarm, and despondency which each new Secretary of State for War and each new policy created there.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he could not discover from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool any ground for the proposal to reduce the Army by 10,000 men except with respect to expense. He did not consider that a good reason for the proposal. He was sorry to hear the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean say that the Army must be ruthlessly cut down. If that were done they knew from experience it was the most extravagant policy they could adopt. In a few months a panic mood might set in, and the men would be replaced in the most costly manner possible. The Cardwell system had been much talked of to-day, but no one had suggested to the Secretary of State any practicable scheme which might be put in the place of the double battalion system. He believed the depôt system to be the worst that could possibly exist. It was tried for a long time and found not to answer at all. Under that system the men did not obtain the regimental feeling, the esprit de corps, which was so essential in the British Army. Of course, they all desired to reduce the cost of the British Army, but in doing so they must proceed with caution. The British Army was in no sense comparable with that of Germany or any other army, because no other army had such calls upon it throughout the world. A few days ago an admirable speech was made by the Secretary of State for War, but they could see the alarm in India in consequence of his very moderate and guarded allusion to the reduction of the Indian garrison. It was quite true that the danger which threatened the North-Western frontier for many years had temporarily ceased, but there was no reason to suppose that the recuperative power of the great nation by which it was said to be threatened would not be as great in the future as it had been in the past. In all probability the disturbed condition of the country would not be any guarantee that the aims of ambitious soldiers would not be directed, in the future as in the past, towards the north-western frontier. Therefore any weakening of our forces in India was to be approached with
  1482
  the greatest caution. The Secretary of State for War, it was satisfactory to see, was on the best terms with his Army Council; he had surrounded himself with the ablest officers in the Army, and his private secretary was one of the ablest officers in the service. He desired to thank the Secretary of State for the attitude he had taken up in regard to the Auxiliary Forces. If there was any justification for the reduction of the Army by 10,000 men, or any other number, it would be found in the policy which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed as to the Militia and the Volunteers and the other reserve forces. As to the Militia, there was no one who had been connected with that body who did not appreciate the attention which the right hon. Gentleman had given to it. With regard to the Volunteers, they already saw an addition to their numbers, which showed that the policy which had been pursued towards them during the last few months had had a great deal to do with the filling of the vacant places which had been brought about by the policy of the last few years. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman, when once he had decided upon his policy, to give it a fair chance and not to keep on meddling with it and imposing new conditions. It was that course of policy which upset both officers and men, prevented their getting good men into the force, and drove good men out. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman intended to act at once upon the report of the Norfolk Commission and to organise the Volunteers into brigades under commanders, who would not be taken away by the mobilisation of the Regular Army. Had it been decided to take the Metropolitan Volunteers outside that organisation? If so, he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider his decision and to give the Metropolitan Volunteers, who numbered some 30,000, the same brigade organisation as he proposed to give to the forces in the provinces. If this were not done, the Metropolitan Volunteers would be at a great disadvantage as compared with the rest of the Volunteer forces of the country, and this fact would be a source of dissatisfaction and discontent. He

  1483
  hoped his right hon. friend would also allow the Auxiliary Forces to be represented upon the Army Council and give them every access to himself. Then he felt certain that there would be a considerable ground for reduction of our military expenditure. The cost of the soldier was £81, but that of the Volunteer only £7, and by doing all he could to encourage the cheaper branch of the service the right hon. Gentleman would do a great deal to increase the defensive power of the country and to prepare the country for war.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he should like to join with other speakers in offering congratulations to his right hon. friend for his recent statement to the House and the country. In the first place, contrary to the practice of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt the impossible and try to unfold to the House at a moment's notice a brand new scheme. In the past, ill-thought-out schemes had involved the country in great difficulty and expense. He thought the country and the Army were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having decided to think first and then to act. His speeches took the form rather of abstract statements of thought than concrete pronouncements of policy, but he had indicated throughout a determination, when he was in a position to act, to effect economy in Army expenditure. He had already indicated methods by which he could effect that economy. He proposed to get rid of useless forts, depots and stores, with their attendant staffs, which had too long been playing an expensive part in Army organisation. In other ways also the right hon. Gentleman had indicated how he could effect economies which would be useful, but in his (the speaker's) view it was certain that there was only one way in which he could effect a reduction and that was by reducing the men in the Regular Army. He fully sympathised with the Motion for reduction which had been moved, and he sincerely trusted that there would be later on a reduction not only of 10,000 men, but of a considerably larger number. He recognised,
  1484
  however, that, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State had no scheme ready at the present moment, it was quite impossible to expect him to carry out any plan of reform this year, but he hoped that in the course of the next twelve months, with his great powers of administration, and those of his military advisers, he would be able to elaborate such a scheme as would provide for a very substantial reduction. The economy could, however, only be effected ultimately by reducing the men of the Regular Army. We had now something like 135,000 men established in oversea garrisons; 75,000 in India, and the remainder spread throughout the different portions of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated that the military establishment in India might possibly in future be reduced, that taking into account recent events which had occurred to our neighbours on the north-west frontier of India it appeared likely that a certain reduction might take place in the British military establishment. This, however, was not so much a question of any neighbouring country, but a question of endangering our own prestige in India. He thought competent judges would tell the right hon. Gentleman that 74,000 or 75,000 men was the irreducible minimum which was necessary to maintain our prestige in India. He did not, therefore, look for reductions in India, but there were other portions of the Empire, such as Malta, where reductions might be effected. This was, however, a matter of Cabinet policy. Another alternative by means of which the Army could be reduced was by reducing the home battalions, but if any reduction was to take place it must mean the abandonment of the Cardwell system of linked battalions which had been the basis of our organisations for twenty-five years. It was not, necessary however, under our present system, when we had all accepted the doctrine of the "Blue-water" school. What was really required for our military defence was, first, a highly trained and efficient striking force of 25,000 men ready to go at a moment's notice to distant parts of the Empire; secondly, a regular stream of drafts to our foreign garrisons; and,

  1485
  thirdly, a great citizen army to meet contingencies at home.
  In order to supply our garrisons abroad it was necessary to maintain at home 125 men for every 1,000 men sent out. Estimating our foreign garrisons at 90,000 men, we should require 13,000 men a year for drafts and 3,000 men for their depot purposes. Taking the home striking force at 24,000 men, and adding 4,000 for depôt purposes, they would arrive at a total of 134,000 men. Our Regular infantry to-day numbered 172,000 men. That was a difference of 38,000 men. He did not suggest that the Regular Army could be reduced by that number, but there were 38,000 men which the right hon. Gentleman could play with when he came to consider his scheme. It had been said by the noble Lord, who made an interesting speech, that the abandonment of the linked battalion system would decrease the efficiency of the Army. In the case of the old depot system of years ago that might be the case, but there was no reason why improvement should not be made in the system, so that it should turn out as efficient troops as the linked battalion system. He was sure the country were determined that Army expenditure should be reduced, and he thought there was no means of reducing expenditure unless they reduced these battalions, abandoned the Cardwell system, and put some other in its place. He hoped next year to see a substantial reduction in the infantry of the line proposed. If the Army was to be maintained on a voluntary basis it must be established on principles in accord with democratic national sentiment. Much had been done in regard to pay, conditions of life in the Army, and forfeits. An even more important consideration was the position of the soldier after his term of service had expired and he left the colours. Our present Army system contributed largely to the ranks of unskilled labourers. Last year there were over 44,000 vagrants relieved by the police in the county of Wiltshire, and of these 5,500 were men who had been in the Army. Those were formidable figures, showing the consequences of the present precarious system, by which men were discharged from the Army to shift for themselves. It was not well that a large proportion of the Reserve should be found in the ranks of vagrancy. There
  1486
  was no reason why soldiers in barracks should not be taught some trade during the long winter months. Such a scheme would require the co-operation of all the industrial departments of the State and of the local authorities. Of all Army reforms there was none more urgent than the making of some arrangements to ensure employment of men who had been in the ranks.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he thought that if the mover and seconder of the Amendment were not satisfied with the statement of the Secretary of State for War they were indeed hard to please. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he made in the City and also on the speech he made in the House the other day. He had seen the rise and fall of many Secretaries of State for War and their maiden speeches were always received with a paean of applause; but the halo with which they were surrounded soon became somewhat dim. He did not think that that would be the case with the right on. Gentleman, and he certainly hoped it would not. He was able to agree with nearly all that the right hon. Gentleman said the other night, but, of course, one had certain criticisms to make. With reference to the question of the Militia it was to his mind a patent and. recognised fraud, and was in a condition of chaos. It was an establishment of something like 90,000 strong, but he did not believe they could put 40,000 into line. What was the right hon. Gentleman going to do with the Militia? The President of the Local Government Board had stated some time ago that twenty battalions of Militia were going to be called out in the winter to help the unemployed. Was the Militia going to be a sort of sublimated Salvation Army shelter? Whatever the merits of the unemployed might be they were not the class to make the soldiers who would be required to back up the troops on the North-West frontier, or to be used in any big affair we might have at home. With regard to the Regular Army itself the right hon. Gentleman wanted one which was small, more mobile, better equipped, and with absolutely up-to-date material. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he reduced the Regular Army he would encourage the auxiliary forces.

  1487
  But how was he going to encourage them? By having 1,000,000 or 500,000 untrained men with rifles? Was the real training to be delayed until war was declared? The right hon. Gentleman backed up his arguments by referring to the levies raised on the Loire in 1870 and 1871. He was in France during the war, and happened to know something about that. It was perfectly true that Gambetta stamped his foot and raised these legions on the soil. But what good were they? They were crumpled up by Von der Tann, as were the francstireurs by Manteuffel. This example simply proved that soldiers could not be improvised. What caused the internment of the French soliders on the Swiss frontier was that they could not operate owing to the lack of artillery. and also because their ranks were filled by irregular troops. These were the last instances he knew of in European history of pitting untrained irregular forces against regular troops. He really thought that if the right hon. Gentleman carried out any such scheme he would be following the extraordinary advice given by the late Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall, who the other day advised an audience whom he was addressing to try the glorious risk of scrapping the Navy and disbanding the Army. It would certainly be a risk, but he for one could not see where the glory came in.
  MAJOR DUNNEsaid that with regard to the garrisons at Malta and Gilbraltar he would suggest to the Secretary of State for War that possibly he might find an opportunity at those places to effect that reduction which so many on the Ministerial side of the House felt to be necessary in the great Army Estimates. So far as infantry were concerned at Malta and Gibraltar they were absolutely and entirely useless. If Malta or Gibraltar were seriously threatened by a close blockade a large body of useless infantry would be locked up which would seriously hamper their defence. There was a curious fascination in fortified places as refuges for infantry, but military history told them how fatal had been that fascination to commanders who had taken advantage of fortified places. Many mili-
  1488
  tary students were convinced that had Bazaine not allowed himself to withdraw into the fortress of Metz after his defeat at St. Privat he would very likely have been able to save the great bulk of his army, instead of having to surrender the total force. He thought the large number of infantry locked up in Malta and Gibraltar was a source of weak ness in case of a blockade, and that the defence of those places should be entrusted to the Navy and Garrison Artillery.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid that although he had listened to the speeches of many Secretaries of State for War he was never more impressed than by the practical views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who now held that position. The point which appealed most to him was the one in which he said he had not formulated any hard and fast line with reference to the organisation of the Army; and it was on that account chiefly that he felt that the few remarks he desired to offer might be considered by the right hon. Gentleman before making up his mind on that subject. He was afraid his remarks, however, would not commend themselves to Gentlemen below the gangway on the Ministerial side of the House, because he could not help contrasting the eagerness with which proposals for reduction of the Army were now received by Gentlemen sitting on those Benches with the sort of feeling they exhibited just before the outbreak of the Boer War, when in opposition, and when everyone was eager to vote for more men and supplies for the Army. What occurred at that time would occur again upon a similar occasion; but, although they might be sure of the patriotism of the House of Commons rising to the necessities of the time and that they would vote millions of money and thousands of men, there was one thing they could not vote, and that was time to prepare the men for the work that lay in front of them. It was, therefore, with some dismay that he heard proposals for reducing the Army in India. It was shortly after the reduction of the British Army in India to a total of 35,000 men that the Indian

  1489
  Mutiny broke out. He considered it would be fatal for the Government to reduce our forces in India at the present time. There were now 78,000 troops for India. He believed that on the authority of Lord Roberts that number of British troops was fixed as the minimum for the safety of the country, and he should be averse from anything which in any way weakened the garrison in India. He thought it within the bounds of possibility that we might be called upon suddenly to increase that force very largely. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench that policy had a great deal to do with the case, and that at the present time we were on very friendly relations with the great Power which threatened our Indian frontier. It should be remembered that, although at the present time it was improbable that we should have any direct menace or any immediate attack from that Power, yet the Russian Foreign Office was not an affair of Party as it was here; for it maintained the continuous policy laid down by the greatest statesman that Russia ever had, Peter the Great, that it was essential to Russia that she should possess India; this was part of his last will, and Russia had worked continuously upon those lines up to the present time, and she was still persistently working in that direction. What was our position in reference to that policy? We had become in India not an insular but a continental Power, and the principles which governed the forces of such a Power governed our forces there. He had heard it stated, and the statement had not been contradicted, that during the whole of the Japanese War the Russians maintained intact a force of 400,000 men between the frontier of India and the head of the Persian Gulf for some possible contingency that might arise; and what could arise there except some complication with England? He believed that the scheme of Russian statesmen was at the right time to advance upon India, in which case their Navy would be upon the flank of our communications by sea. How were we going to get troops to India in case of entanglement with Russia? In these circumstances was it wise to contemplate for one moment any reduction of our forces in India?
  1490
  Would it not be wiser to consider how, in the event of any sudden declaration of war, or in case we become involved with that country, we should be able to largely reinforce our forces in India. That brought him to consider our military position. He did not propose to go into details now, but he thought the Committee ought to take up a much wider field of observation. The organisation of the British Army was what they should look to when they had settled what the military factors were, and then they could see what reduction was possible in each one of them. If they took 78,000 for India as the minimum there could not he any reduction there. We required the garrisons for the Mediterranean and for other places too. We needed also beyond this a striking force which we could send out from this country, and we also required a force for the defence of these islands against a possible attack. So that there were four large bodies of troops which we had to maintain at a certain and a sufficient strength. The point which the right hon. Gentle man the Secretary of State for War had to settle was what the strength of these component parts must be, how he could keep them up to that strength in case of war, and how far he could reduce them in time of peace with safety in reference to a time of war. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire thought the reduction should take place in the home battalions, and he had declared that he belonged to the blue-water school of opinion. But personally he did not agree with the blue-water school and their views. He considered that this country was open to attack, under certain conditions, and the Secretary of State for War should prepare his forces to meet any attack which might come upon us suddenly, with, it might be, small help from the Navy, and which, if it came, would be in the nature of a surprise attack, giving small time for preparation. That was a problem to which the right hon. Gentleman should devote his best attention. How long should we be given to get ready to face an attacking force if the Navy was away on its proper duty? We should have only about four days to be ready to meet a large force of the enemy, and therefore it was necessary that our forces should be

  1491
  in such a state of preparation that they would be ready to meet an attacking force in our own country in four days. That attack could only succeed by a surprise. The idea of the gentlemen of the blue-water school was that because we had a strong Navy we were free of all further responsibility for the defence of these islands. Was the efficiency of the Navy to be decreased by keeping a large part of it tied up watching the approaches to these islands when their services might be wanted on the frontiers of our Empire. What was required was the patriotic sacrifices of the people of this country now in order to train our troops here to be ready to meet any surprise attacking force, and it was the duty of the Secretary of State for War to see that our forces were sufficient for this. Members should not allow themselves to be carried away by the idea that because we had a strong Navy we were absolutely safe. The Army and the Navy should work together for the defence of the British Empire, but the safety of the British Isles depended upon having a sufficient force in this country equipped, prepared, and periodically exercised for the defence of these shores so as to be ready to meet any attack which might be sprung upon them without any warning, before even a declaration of war.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had always argued that extravagant expenditure upon the Army in times of peace, on things that were not absolutely necessary, was the way to cause weakness and to destroy the efficiency of the Army. The reduction which had been moved by his hon. and gallant friend declared that there should be some permanent and substantial reduction in the expenditure upon the Army. It was not a question of reducing a little piece here and there, and bringing the old system up in a more moderate form; they must take hold of some substantial piece of policy and promise definitely that there would be a substantial reduction, and something more than the lopping off of a few men from some of the battalions abroad and at home. They wanted something more than the taking away of a few guns from the
  1492
  fortifications of London. Many hon. Members had been returned pledged to economy, and their opinion was that there should be some means found of reducing a large proportion of the Army, and not of merely lopping off little corners. The Secretary of State for War had said that it was impossible to do away with the linked battalion system, because it necessitated the establishment of large depôts. They wanted nothing of the sort. They did not want the linked battalion system done away with, but they might very well adopt a system of two battalions at home and three abroad. They wanted some statement that the whole system would be modified in some way. He did not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too hard. They wished to give him a free hand, because they knew that he was an economist, but they wanted some definite guarantee that there would be some reduction of expenditure on the Army for the defence of this country, which was supposed to be defended by the Fleet. He believed that the Militia and the Volunteers were ample to defend this country, and to do garrison duty in most of the garrisons abroad when war broke out. We should never be called upon to face the enemy at once, because the strip of water around us would be sufficient protection for a few weeks whilst we made our partially trained men into competent troops.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to say a word or two on this question from the point of view of the working man. It seemed to him that, so far, it was largely the military idea that had been put before the House, but he wished to point out that there were other interests to be considered besides the interests of the Army. It was a well-known fact that for a number of years past the subject of international arbitration had been discussed at the Trade Unions Congress, and they had considered the progress made in providing machinery for submitting international disputes to international arbitration. That in itself was some justification for ordinary people supposing that a considerable reduction could reasonably be made in the standing Army. There were other

  1493
  reasons that one would naturally suggest. Looking at Europe it seemed to him that militarism was the great curse of all the nations, and this was a matter in which some one must take the lead. Was there any other Power in the whole of Europe which, owing to its geographical position, was in such a splendid position to take the lead as our own country?
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress.
  To sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. CLANCYsaid he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. It offered an excellent example of how to do a thing without appearing to do it, or professing to do it. He could quite understand hon. Members unacquainted with Irish affairs reading the statement of this Bill and coming to the conclusion that it was a Bill which, on the face of it, ought to be sent to a Committee upstairs. But anyone acquainted with Irish affairs would readily see, on looking into the Bill, that the apparent object of it was by no means the real object. This was what was called an Annexation Bill. Annexation was a very favourite subject of legislation in this country. The annexation of districts for the purpose of extending the borders of the large urban areas which they adjoined had been the rule in this country for twenty years past. It was the practice of large cities which had outgrown their limits to annex adjacent areas. He
  1494
  might mention several specific instances which had occurred, but what he said would not be seriously disputed. In Ireland itself, Belfast had had its limits extended, and at this moment, in consequence of an annexation Act passed a few years ago, the boundaries of Belfast had been extended to include a large district which was still rural. Dublin had been treated in a very extraordinary fashion in this regard. Dublin had made repeated efforts to extend the limits of its municipal area over the very district which now promoted this Bill for annexation on its own account. Many years ago Lord Spencer, then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, appointed a Commission to inquire into the question of the extension of Dublin, and the Commission reported that the annexation of all the townships and rural districts round Dublin should be sanctioned by Parliament. That Report was never acted upon, and every Bill put forward by Dublin to extend its areas was opposed by Rathmines, which now promoted this Bill. The last Bill brought forward by Dublin was with regard to the supply of water to Rathmines. Rathmines opposed the Bill upon grounds which had never been truly stated and which would not bear examination. They opposed it on political grounds; they would not have anything to do with Nationalist water. In Rathmines were concentrated the pink of perfection of the Orange faction south of the Boyne, and they refused to have anything to do with Dublin except to live on it. The shoddy aristocracy of Rathmines were content to live in villas near Dublin, but would have nothing to do with Dublin itself because it was a Nationalist city. He spoke for the Nationalist minority of Rathmines when he said that these people were not to be tolerated, and he hoped the House would not tolerate their demand to act apart from the City of Dublin. They opposed all annexation efforts on the part of Dublin. All the efforts of Dublin to do what Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and all the great cities of England had been allowed to do by Parliament, had been opposed by Rathmines. It was a commentary on the way in which Irish affairs were dealt with in this House that while they had granted these facilities to all the municipalities of England

  1495
  which had asked for them, they would not grant them to the chief city of Ireland. Having done all this this urban authority came here last year with the audacious proposal now repeated in this Bill for the annexation of a rural district in the county of Dublin. The people of the county of Dublin protested against it and the overwhelming majority of the County Council of Dublin asked the Louse to reject this Bill. The object of this Bill was to raise, on the part of the Rathmines District Council, another barrier against annexation by Dublin, and to erect itself into a county borough and to free itself from the slight control at present exercised over it by the Nationalist County Council of Dublin, of which they had never made the slightest complaint, but which, nevertheless, they could not endure. The great argument in favour of these annexation proposals was that the district it was proposed to annex required drainage. In 1900 a joint Committee of both Houses discussed the question of the drainage of Dublin and the surrounding townships and rural areas of Dublin, and the Joint Committee arrived at the unanimous conclusion that it would be to the public advantage if there were one authority and one only to control the drainage and sewers of these townships, and they recommended that steps should be taken to construct a great drainage board. That was a proposal which Dublin was quite willing to carry out, but Rathmines and Pembroke refused to have anything to do with it and it was not carried out. It was not Dublin alone which sought to solve this difficulty. The district of Terenure, partly urban but mostly rural, had made more than one effort to procure an efficient drainage scheme for itself, and the persons who obstructed them in all their efforts were the Rathmines District Council. Terenure attempted to arrange with Rathmines to make use of their system, and for two years could not obtain a straight answer from them. Then they suggested that they should turn their sewage into the Dublin system. Here again they were opposed by the Rathmines District Council. What Rathmines wanted was not to drain Terenure but to obtain their money. The paper circulated among Members of the House
  1496
  said there was no alternative to the proposals of this Bill. That statement was false in the knowledge of those who made it. There was the city of Dublin scheme. Rathmines had a population of 30,000 and was only divided into two wards. The Dublin County Council had asked that those two wards should be again divided, so that there should be four wards, which would enable the voice of the Nationalist minority to be heard, but the Rathmines District Council refused, for the reason that if they accepted that the old practice of electing the board on two tickets would be defeated, and the Nationalist minority would be represented even on the present register. The Rathmines District Council had no moral authority to ask for this Bill. They were elected on a fraudulent franchise; upon the same franchise upon which the hon. Member for South Dublin was elected. The electoral list of South Dublin contained 1,500 lodgers, more than half the whole of the lodgers registered in all the counties of Ireland. There were 1,000 lodgers in Rathmines alone and 900 of those were bogus. Men one would never suspect, who wore respectable clothes and possessed large incomes, let out their houses for lodgings to their own sons and daughters. There were 1,000 bogus lodgers who were fraudulently on the register of South Dublin, and the voice of the hon. Member for that constituency ought not be to heard upon this matter. This Bill was supported by sixteen Orangemen and was opposed by eighty-three Nationalist Members, and it was for the House to say which they would support. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. FIELDsaid he rose to second the rejection of this Bill, and he did so as a member of the Dublin County Council. As a registration worker he had had thirty years experience of Rathmines, and he asserted that there were more lodgers in South Dublin than in any other Irish constituency. They had them at all ages, from the perambulator stage upwards, and in all kinds of houses, from the cabin to the palace. But leaving the lodgers out of consideration for a moment he desired

  1497
  to show what the object of this Bill was. It was an annexation Bill with a political motive, and he unhesitat. ingly asserted the last session when this Bill got its second reading that means were adopted by the Front Government Bench which were altogether unconstitutionally irregular and unprecedented in regard to the passage of a Private Bill. The matter was not denied. Undoubtedly this Measure which was brought forward in the guise of a private Bill was a Measure for the purpose of carving out a constituency in a portion of South Dublin so that a Conservative Member might be returned. Surely a Liberal and democratic House of Commons was not going to lend itself to that kind of shilly-shally. As a member of the county council he had to say that Dublin had an objection to being dismembered or annexed. The district proposed to be annexed was one of the most valuable portions of the Dublin County Council area. It was only since the valuation had increased that it had become the desire of the Rathmines County Council to grab the rates, and that desire had been brought to a practical issue by the presentation of this Bill. The Bill would not have been read a second time last session if the House of Commons had been allowed to exercise discretion on the matter, as was usually done in the case of ordinary private Bills. He protested against any Government, Liberal or Conservative, using a private Bill of this kind for political purposes. He knew there were several hon. Gentlemen belonging to the dominant minority in Ireland who were in favour of this Bill. Majorities in other countries ruled, but irresponsible minorities ruled in Ireland. He knew the gentlemen of Rathmines. The Nationalists were kept out of the town hall on the occasion of the recent election because these people were afraid to let them in. He denied that the town hall belonged to any dominant minority. It belonged to the ratepayers. The Rathmines gentlemen knew that when the Nationalists got in anywhere they generally managed to stay there. He hoped the Liberal and democratic Members of this House were not going to allow themselves to be engineered for the purpose of upholding the Conservative minority in
  1498
  Rathmines in the peculiar position in which they had placed themselves by the clever manipulation of the franchise, and by the exercise of their municipal powers.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he did not propose to enter into controversy with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. What he proposed to do was to let the House know what this Bill was, for, while up to the present moment they had heard a great deal of abuse of the loyal inhabitants of Rathmines, they had not received a particle of information as to the merits or demerits of the measure. He would undertake to satisfy the House that this was an ordinary sanitary measure brought up by the competent authority in such matters. The details of the Bill had already been approved by Committees of this House and of the upper House, and by this House itself by large majorities on two occasions. Before dealing with the merits of the Bill he desired to correct one or two statements made by the hon. and learned Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and also by the hon. Member who seconded that Motion, with the view of endeavouring to create a prejudice in the minds of hon. Members opposite in regard to the measure. They were told by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin that so bigoted was the urban district council of Rathmines that while they granted the use of the town hall in Rathmines to two supporters of the late Government they declined to give a similar indulgence to the Nationalist candidate and his friends. He thought his hon. and learned friend might have told the House that the use of that town hall was asked at a time when it was actually in the hands of carpenters and other people who were fitting it up as a polling booth for the election.
  MR. CLANCY: They had two days to fit it up as a polling booth.
  MR. CAMPBELLrepeated his statement and asked if the hon. Member did not think it would have been worth his while to mention that the Town Clerk of Rathmines published a letter saying he urged and requested the High Sheriff to grant the use of the hall, and he received a reply that he would have been delighted to comply, but the interval was too short.
  MR. CLANCY: I regret to say that no such statement was made by the High Sheriff.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had a very quiet and patient hearing and he might listen to the hon. Member for Dablin University.
  MR. CLANCY: I apologise for interfering so often. [An HON. MEMBER "Sit down."] I will sit down when ordered by the Speaker, but not by you.
  MR. CAMPBELLsaid this only showed how unfortunate it was that the hon. and learned Member, instead of giving the House some information as to the details of the Bill should have thought it better to indulge in abuse of his political opponents and to drag into the controversy matters which had absolutely nothing to do with it. He would now direct the attention of the House to the fact that they were asked to do something for which no precedent could be found in the annals of Parliamentary procedure, and that was to reject on the Second Reading and refuse to allow to come before a Committee of this House in the ordinary way a Bill which in form and substance had already been ratified and adopted by the House. What were the facts? The township of Rathmines had practically since 1847 been growing up and daily increasing in strength and importance. It was now a township with its own water supply, its own drainage system, its own fire brigade, its public library, and all the equipments of a proper township. All that it had obtained and supplied without a shilling of aid or assistance from the adjoining city of Dublin, but on the outskirts of the
  1500
  township—there was this portion of the County of Dublin which it was sought by the Bill to annex. It contained about 660 acres of land, and there were upon it over 1,000 houses, containing a population of 5,000, and would the House believe—it was hardly credible, but it was an ascertained and undisputed fact—that the County of Dublin, who were responsible for the sanitary superintendence and supervision of this area, had never spent one shilling in the drainage or in providing any sanitary system for these 1,000 houses. In 1898 the inhabitants of these houses, driven to despair, proceeded to take the case into their own hands, and they diverted their sewage into the system of the adjoining Rathmines township. They had no right in law to do that, and the Rathmines Commissioners applied to the courts in Dublin and obtained an injunction against the occupiers of these houses continuing to drain their sewers to the Rathmines drainage system. They obtained their injunction, but they refused to enforce it, because if they had they would have left the inhabitants of these 1,000 houses without any drainage system whatever, and they would have been a constant menace and danger to the entire neighbourhood. Since 1898 these 1,000 houses had been drained in this way, but in addition to having been deprived of any sanitary system, there had not been a shilling of outlay incurred for the purpose of providing that area with any appliances in case of an outbreak of fire in these 1,000 houses, and if such an outbreak occurred, there was no provision for the protection of these inhabitants. Accordingly, last year a Bill was promoted and brought in by the Rathmines and Rathgar Commissioners. It had been suggested by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the rejection of the Bill that last session Lord Atkinson, who was then Attorney-General for Ireland, made a speech in support of the measure. There was not a particle of foundation for that statement. What the late Attorney-General did was to say that while the Government declined to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill, they thought the ordinary course should be followed of allowing it to be sent to a Committee

  1501
  of the House, where it could be discussed on its merits. The Bill was sent to a Committee, and they, by a unanimous vote, decided that it should be allowed to proceed. It then came down to the House for Third Reading. It was then stated, in opposition to the Bill, that it would be unjust to the Corporation of Dublin to pass it, because it did not provide for the purification of the sewage from the district before it went into the river Liffey. Another objection was that the Corporation of Dublin having laid down pipes and plant for the purpose of supplying the district with water were to be deprived of compensation for that. The promoters of the Bill suggested that it would be open to the Corporation of Dublin to bring these matters up when the Bill went to the House of Lords. The Bill passed the Third Reading by a large majority. Clauses were put in the Bill by the House of Lords to meet these two grievances. The Bill came back to this House in order that the Lords' Amendments night be considered, but the session came to a close before that could be done. He appealed to the House to allow the Bill to go before a Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was a precedent for what the House was now asked to do in the course followed in 1886 in regard to the Dundalk Gas Bill. Every Member of the present Government supported them on the last occasion. The Member for Trinity College had said that Rathmines had got an injunction against Terenure which they were seeking to absorb to prevent the sewage draining into their sewage works. Under what circumstances did they get the injunction? On the oath of their engineer, who swore before the High Court in Dublin that if they were allowed to drain into the Rathmines draining system it would be flooded, and the same engineer swore before Sir J. Brunner's Committee that the same sewers would contain twice the sewage. Another piece of expert engineering. Having got an injunction in order to induce the unfortunate inhabitants to take the Rathmines sewage arrangements and the Dublin water supply, they said "We will allow you to empty your water-closets into our sewers if you take
  1502
  our water, nothwithstanding the injunction." The whole question really came to this. It was reducing politics in Ireland to its proper basis. The question for the House was whether Nationalist sewage of Dublin had been allowed to be purified in the penstock of the Protestants. The object of this Bill was to enable the Conservatives of Rathmines to have purification of their own. He respectfully asked the House that, as every individual Irishman except the Conservatives were in favour of the extension of Dublin and the absorption of this district on the ground of cheapness, cleanliness, and sanitation, no further letters of marque should be given to Rathmines to prey upon the body politic of Dublin.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that perhaps the House would allow him as a ratepayer of Rathmines and a voter in that constituency to say a word in reply. No one had a greater admiration for the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the House. He was one of the heroes of Ireland. He told them that he had been waiting for twenty years, in hero-like fashion, to have this full day of revenge in a democratic House of Commons. He selected as the occasion the introduction of a Bill to drain and provide proper sewerage for 5,000 of the inhabitants of the County of Dublin. He did not believe that the Bill would have received such treatment in any country outside Ireland. There was nothing to be considered except whether 1,000 houses in a certain district ought to be properly drained by the Rathmines township—absolutely nothing else in the Bill, and the exceptional course was taken of asking the House to say that that was not a matter which need be inquired into before a Committee of the House. The hon. Member said why should the House accept the rinsings of Toryism? He included in that the hon. Members for Stroud arid Norwich who sat on the other side of the House. Was the House deliberately going to reject the Bill on Second Reading without referring it to Committee after the merits of the Bill had been approved by those two hon. Members? Was the House going to refuse to allow the

  1503
  matter even to be inquired into. He should hardly think that hon. Members believed there was any mandate from the constituencies to reject an ordinary sewage Bill because it had reference to a Unionist constituency in Ireland and was opposed by a Nationalist constituency. It might be for all he knew one of the matters which were supposed to lead up to the larger policy. Let it not be laid down in the very inception of this Parliament because a Unionist township asked for a sewage Bill to be inquired into by the House that therefore it was to be rejected. Let them understand the situation thoroughly in Ireland. He should have thought that on an occasion of this sort they might have had a word from the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General who knew the district as well as any man. As they would give no information they were driven back to refer to the proceedings that took place before the previous Committee. He supposed that every Bill of this kind in the future would be regarded by the House as containing all the elements for a political squabble. If that was so all Bills which came from any district in Ireland ought to be treated in the same way, and they undoubtedly would be. Thus they would see what would be the progress of Ireland under a Liberal Government.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the House to allow him to point the moral of this incident. Here was a great Imperial senate and they were engaged in discussing the question of the local sewerage of a township in Ireland. Let the House consider the situation. The Members of the new Parliament had come there full of enthusiasm to push forward measures of Imperial reform and their time was occupied with the discussion of a sewerage question relating to an Irish township. Pointing the moral as he did by showing the absurdity of the present system of Government in Ireland, he asked the House to support the case of the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members in this House.
  MR. BYLESwished to emphasise the protest made by the Leader of the Irish Party. He knew nothing about Rathmines or Terenure, but he was going to vote with the majority of the Irish Party because he thought it was high time that all questions in regard to the sewerage of Irish towns should be settled not by an English but by an Irish Parliament.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 282. (Division List No. 15.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Forster, Henry William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Haddock, George R.

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

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Soares, Ernest S.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Kennaway Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W.

  Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

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

  Keswick, William

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Whitbread, Howard

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Cave, George

  Liddell, Henry

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Chance, Frederick William

  Lynch, H. B.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

  Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. F.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Charles Craig.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Paulton, James Mellor

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dillon, John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Alden, Percy

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ambrose, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duckworth, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamb, Edmund Geo (Leominster

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Lambert, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barker, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Barnard, E. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Essex, R. W.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bell, Richard

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Levy, Maurice

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lough, Thomas

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Bertram, Julius

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mackarness, Frederick C.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Billson, Alfred

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Boland, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Brace, William

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Branch, James

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marnham, F. J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Menzies, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Halpin, J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hammond, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Cairns, Thomas

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Murphy, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Myer, Horatio

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Harrington, Timothy

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cherry, R. R.

  Hart-Davis, T.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Harwood, George

  O Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clough, W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henderson, J. M (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Malley, William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  O'Mara, James

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Paul, Herbert

  Cox, Harold

  Hogan, Michael

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Crossfield, A. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Reddy, M.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras N.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rees, J. D.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  1506

  1507

  Richards, Thomas W. Monm'th

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Richardson, A.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Snowden, P.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Steadman, W. C.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Robinson, S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, J., (Glamorgan)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Runciman, Walter

  Thorne, William

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Torrance, A. M.

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Toulmin, George

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Young, Samuel

  Seddon, J.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Clancy and Mr. Mooney

  Shackleton, David James

  Walsh, Stephen

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Main Question as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

  SUPPLY [2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 204,100, 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, 1907."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 194,100, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."—(Major Seely.)
  MR. J. WARD, continuing his speech in support of the reduction, declared that there was a strong opinion among organised labour associations that much
  1508
  of the Army expenditure was unnecessary because it was useless and unproductive. He urged the Secretary for War to make a definite statement that retrenchment should begin with the least possible delay. £29,000,000 was a very considerable item, and, considering the geographical position of our country, we ought not to be called upon to spend such a large sum especially as Ministers had declared there was no danger of invasion. They should, he thought, have a definite statement from the Prime Minister as to what he was prepared to do in the direction indicated. Remarkable progress had been made during recent years in the principle of submitting questions of international dispute to arbitration. Since His Majesty came to the Throne, remarkable progress had been made in that direction, and he hoped there would be little fear, at least so far as European nations were concerned, that difficulties would arise hereafter that could not be settled by that means. The working-men of this country were not in favour of excessive expenditure on armaments. They looked with more distaste upon this form of expenditure than upon any other. They considered it to be largely useless, and totally unproductive. He had been struck, during the debate, by the variation in the views of experts on military matters. One set of experts thought it was not possible to reduce the home establishment, but that it might be

  1509
  possible to reduce the establishment abroad. Another set of experts took an altogether opposite view. That was generally the case with experts. They could generally get an expert opinion on either side of almost any subject, and it was for the commonsense man—the average man in the street—to decide between the experts, or so-called experts. He would agree with both sides, and he thought he was entitled to do so if officers of reputation differed so considerably. By this means he had expert opinion in favour of reducing both the home and foreign establishments. That perfectly satisfied him. An Army for a country like ours could only be for aggression. So far as he knew the history of his country, the Army had always been used for that purpose. [Cries of "Indian Mutiny."] We naturally thought the Indians were the aggressors, but no doubt the natives of India thought we were the aggressors. It depended upon which side one stood as to his point of view. He had been given to understand by the Prime Minister in the late Government it was not possible to successfully attack this country. He did not think it was. We relied very largely for our defences upon the Navy. The Army was for aggression, and therefore they were in favour of reducing it. Some time ago it was stated that this country had formed a strong alliance with Japan and that such alliance put a possible attack upon our Indian Empire outside the range of possibility. Of course if it were now declared that the treaty could have no such influence, then a good deal of reason for the alliance disappeared. Militarism was the curse of Europe. Democracy groaned under its intolerable burden. War, they believed, was wrong, and in the next generation that would be the opinion of the majority of civilised peoples. If it were wrong for two individuals to settle their disputes in the old brutal fashion of killing or murder, it was equally wrong for States or nations to do the same. They were told that it was absolutely necessary that they should become soldiers in order to defend this country, but he was confident that a happy and contented people under any circumstances, whenever the occasion arose,
  1510
  would always be ready and able to-defend their liberty and homes.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken was not based upon knowledge nor did it greatly illuminate the subject. The Minister in charge of the administration of the Army had stated that he was fully conscious of the feeling of the House and the country in favour of a diminution of military expenditure, and he had also stated that he was dealing with a very difficult task and a very delicate organisation, and he asked for time in order to deal with that organisation in a way which would not do harm but good. The hon. Member who had just spoken had urged that prudence must not be exercised, that time must not be taken. He would ask the House to analyse those propositions. The hon. Gentleman had told the House he was against war. He supposed there was no Member of that House who would not say that he was against war. But the hon. Member had told them that the action of the British Army in India in repressing the mutiny was merely a question of the point of view. That was perfectly true. It was a question whether we or the sepoys were to be victorious. The hon. Member spoke of a peaceful nation having some method other than war of effectively resisting attack. If his principle had been adopted we should have lost India. There might be a code of ethics which would reconcile us to the loss of India, but there was no economic code which would reconcile the working people of this country to it. The hon. Member looked forward to a time when war would be abolished. He was old enough to remember the Civil War in the United States, and the discussions on it in this House. There was a great problem that was bound to be solved, and was capable of being solved only by a struggle for life and death. When the flag over Fort Sumter was fired on, the people of the United States had no hesitation and they fought for four years to establish a principle. They all knew the history of the great struggle for the unity and liberation of Italy. We feted Garibaldi in the City of London, wrote odes to him, sent addresses to him,

  1511
  and hailed him as a God-created apostle of liberty. But it was only by war that the question could be settled, and it was because the French marched 180,000 men across the Alps and fought the battles of Solferino and Magenta and because the campaign of 1859 was followed by that of 1866 that Italy was liberated. Were they to say that we had now arrived at a time when that method of deciding a great issue had gone? Though the hon. Member desired that it should be gone, could he guarantee that it was gone? He could remember when a Liberal Minister told the assembled Parliament that the European sky was without a cloud, and six weeks later the war between France and Prussia broke out. Mr. Cobden proved in page after page that for economic reasons France neither could nor would go to war, and the assertion in regular succession was followed by the Crimean war, the Italian campaign, the Mexican campaign, and the Franco-German war. That was a prophecy just as well established by an appeal to general principles as that of the hon. Member for Stoke, and no doubt just as capable of drawing the cheers of hon. Members. The hon. Member had talked with scorn of expert opinion. In the matter of the heating of a kiln or the temperature of a fiery mine the hon. Member would not perhaps accept expert opinion as conclusive, but he would pay a great deal of respect to it, and he would not speak of it as he had just spoken of military opinion. There was a great deal of experience to which the world could go in the matter of these military questions. There were several nations who had said "Let us cast aside our weapons and turn our sword into ploughshares." [Cries of "Which?"] Holland, Venice, and perhaps Austria before 1856 were cases in point. But when some nations had neglected military precautions, had other nations accepted the peaceable proclamation? Not at all. As long as there were nations preparing the whole of their manhood for war it was impossible for a nation such as ours to disarm, although we had no hostile intent against any European Power, The hon. Member for Stoke did hot believe in his own theory, for he was in favour of naval preparation. If he believed in the protection of arbitration
  1512
  treaties, then he must say, "Down with the Army and down with the Navy." If he did not say that he was clearly inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that we could not afford to dispense with that protection. He agreed with the hon. Member on one point. He thought that there was great room for a reduction in the expenditure of the Army. But he did not agree that the hon. Member's method of arriving at that reduction was either wise or business-like. He felt strongly, however, that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was the belief of every one who had hitherto had anything to do with the administration of the War Office in late years. Personally he had said over and over again in the House that there was room for a reduction in Army expenditure, and he had given evidence of the sincerity of his intention. Every year that he had been in office the personnel of the Army had been reduced. There had also been a reduction this year, and he was confident that there was room for a still larger reduction. Indeed he would let the House into a secret. Whether the right hon. Gentleman liked it or not, there must be a reduction in the Army. As there were 39,000 men coming out of the Infantry this year and probably a maximum of 22,000 going in, it need not surprise the House at all if at the end of twelve months the right hon. Gentleman came down and told the House he had effected a reduction in the infantry. He was most anxious, however, to see that the desire for the reduction should be made consonant with the interests of the Army. He had always held that they ought to reduce the infantry with the colours on the home establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had discussed the way in which that reform might be achieved. He did not altogether agree with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman nor did he think on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would abide by the opinion which he now held. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was an incongruity, an absurdity almost, about his proposition to-night, and that the only method of reducing the Army was by rejecting the double battalions. The right hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about policy governing Army expenditure. Within

  1513
  limits he agreed, but to a certain extent he did not agree. There were always two parties to a policy, and in the history of wars he had always found that there was an aggressor, and that it was not always a matter of choice as to whether we should engage in a war or not. Whether we chose or not, we might be compelled to take part in a war; and he thought it was rather a curious proceeding to have a system which compelled us to make our Army policy correspond with the accident of our organisation. We had more battalions abroad than we had at home, and circumstances compelled us now to keep battalions in the Colonies. That might be described as the result of policy, and if the policy held, why were we to bend our policy, to distort our policy in order to keep up an artificial system? If it were true that our policy required a certain number of battalions in India and in the Colonies, then by the right hon. Gentleman's rule we must keep battalion for battalion in this country. The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake when he spoke about the battalions on short tour abroad. The battalions abroad in the Mediterranean and in South Africa were not battalions fit for war. If he examined the nominal roll of these battalions he would find that they would have to be strengthened by reservists to the extent of 400 and 500 men, owing to the need that would arise to bring home that number of men now serving in the battalions, and to send out five or six hundred men to take their places, so as to make those battalions fit for war. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be quite right to reduce the number of the troops at home. With that policy he agreed. It was, however, an absolute fallacy to suppose that you could make war with scratch armies. If they broke up battalions as suggested, they would lose 400 trained officers—the one thing
  1514
  we wanted most—800 non-commissioned officers, 6,000 men in the reserve; and they would have to recreate those battalions the moment they came to war. What could be done was perfectly consistent with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. They could follow the example of the Navy. They could reduce the establishments for the battalions at home. They could have the equivalent of the skeleton crews of the Navy. They could keep those battalions in a position in which they would be reinforced and revived in time of war. Once destroy them, and they would be paralysed and utterly unable to recreate them for effective purposes.
  The right hon. Gentleman had made a tremendous demand upon their confidence. They were prepared to honour that draft, and to give him time. But before finally allowing him to proceed upon his task, he would venture upon one word of caution. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute for our Regular Army an incoherent, unorganised, undisciplined force, of which as yet they knew nothing, and of which even the skeleton had not been made apparent to their eyes. There were some of them who felt very anxious lest he should be led into destroying before he was able to replace. He believed there was no military opinion extant which supported the view that they could enter upon war with an amateur army, ill-officered, ill-supplied with non - commissioned officers, and ill-trained; and there was no military authority at all for the proposition that they could in haste create one. He had looked at the record of armies of that kind in the field. He had looked at the reports of the army of the Loire. That was an army levied en masse, and included men of some six months training under officers some of whom were Regular officers. This force took

  1515
  the field in the crisis of their country's fate. They were well led so far as their commanders went; but they were badly officered. They were fighting in their own country, they were in enormously superior numbers. He had before him General Chanzy's reports of what that army did. Occupying the strongest positions the country afforded, they were utterly destroyed and broken up, and their failure was explained by every authority by the youth and military inexperience of the men. As far as his power went, he should at all points press the right hon. Gentleman to tell them, before he took any step in the direction of making more unorganised armies, that he had behind him the military authority of anybody at all. He should want the right hon. Gentleman to tell them categorically that he had learnt from the officers of this country, or of any other country, that we could successfully engage in war with troops without adequate training, and without a full supply of officers—and officers not merely attached from time to time to casual battalions, or who were merely giving up a small portion of their time to the military profession. He would not press the right hon. Gentleman now, however. He knew well that this question was far too important to be discussed in one evening, and that the right hon. Gentleman himself would greatly dislike the House of Commons to be hurried in a matter of this kind. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would be patient with them and tell them, stage by stage, what changes he desired to make. The right hon. Gentleman had made a demand upon them which he believed every man of common sense in the House would consider a reasonable demand; he had asked that he should be allowed to give attention to the great problems before him, and had given assurances which he for one respected.
  1516
  If they accepted those assurances they would agree that the line the right hon. Gentleman had taken was the right one, that he must be allowed with patience and attention to study the problem, so that when he had studied it he would be able to apply his knowledge to the true benefit of the Army.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sure that those Members of the House who are new to these debates and who are not, like some of us, seasoned on the topics that have been discussed to-night must have been greatly interested by the close insight afforded to them into the intricacies of military organisation. They have had the cloudy mysteries of the wrongly-called linked battalions at one end of the long chain, and they have had the terror as to the North-West Frontier of India at the other, and from one of these extremes to the other rival opinion has raged. I think that the general discussion may have been of no small assistance to my right hon. friend; but, after all, we are only to-night beating the air, as it were, because the Minister in charge of these Estimates, with this tremendous task before him, has made an appeal to the House to have confidence in him, or, if that is too strong a word, to have patience with him while he examines the whole of these intricate problems and tries to arrive honestly and laboriously at the best organisation to give to the Army. There is no Army in the world which has to be fitted for such various uses as our Army, and therefore the problem exceeds in difficulty that presented to any other country. But my right hon. friend very properly disclaims any parti pris in the matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down attributed to him certain views upon this subject and upon that—not in any extreme way—but my right hon. friend has wisely kept himself free from any explicit expression of opinion;

  1517
  he has only been a few weeks in office, and, as I have said, the curtain has been sufficiently rifted to-night to let the House see what a complicated business it is. My right hon. friend appealed to the House to help him lift this question of the organisation of the Army out of the region of Party controversy. I have often preached—it is not always practised, for, after all, we are all human—but I have often preached the doctrine that these Army questions—I mean purely definitely Army questions—ought to be treated between the two sides, or the half-dozen sides, if such there are, of the House without any reference to other topics on which we differ. My right hon. friend, in appealing to the House to give him that assistance, I think did right. But I am speaking only of the questions of organisation; when we get to the question of the strength of the force you should maintain, the nature of that force and the amount of money to be expended, that depends upon general policy, which is another matter altogether, as to which it is almost ridiculous to expect any close continuity such as you could have upon a strictly technical matter like the organisation of the Army. Let there be no doubt as to the ground we take on those questions of general policy which determine military expenditure. Our desire is to be as little provocative as possible, to make as little as possible inroads upon the reserves of the national resources. We desire to cultivate economy as much as possible. But let me look back upon the years through which we have passed, the ten years during which we have seen this military expenditure, Army and Navy, going up steadily year by year in a relentless course, and surely it is not possible, holding the views that we hold, not to endeavour, with all our might, to check that course of increasing expenditure, and, if possible, to reverse the stream. I say we are bound to strain every nerve to stop that
  1518
  growth of expenditure. It is not easy to check expenditure that has been going on so long. The habit of expenditure, the habit in the public services and in the public offices, as well as in this House, and expenditure of the sort which we have been witnessing, has this peculiarity—that one branch of it creates, or apologises for, and leads to another. And, therefore, as I say, it is about as much as we can do, in the initial stages at any rate, to prevent the further growth of the evil before we see how far we can go in cutting down the evil itself. My right hon. friend, I think the House will agree, has done well in that respect. He has, broadly, reduced the Estimates as he found them when he came into office by £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. That was no easy task, and it shows that my right hon. friend has an earnest anxiety in the direction of economy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERmade an interruption which did not reach the gallery.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When my right hon. friend came into office he found that the Estimates proposed for the coming year were £1,750,000 greater in extent than the Estimates of the previous year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must really ask leave to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. That is a very serious statement. The right hon. Gentleman found no Estimates prepared by me. He found, what a Minister always finds, a rough sketch of Estimates which are always furnished for the decision of the Minister. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there has been a reduction on the Estimates of the previous years of £1,500,000? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I repeat what I said. Of course, they

  1519
  were not the ultimate, final Estimates. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh !"] The odd thing was that the Navy Estimates, upon which there was to be a reduction, were issued, no one knows for what reason, before the general election at a time of the year when no one expects the Navy Estimates to be issued. But the Army Estimates were not so issued. No doubt the Estimates I speak of were the sketch Estimates for the coming year—that is to say, the demands of the Department upon the Government, and my right hon. friend succeeded, by applying himself to it, and with the help of his military advisers, in wiping out that excess. But there have been some sweeping assertions made, even by friends of my own, in this debate which I accept and accede to, under limits. It is often said that the only way you can reduce Army Estimates is by reducing the men. Of course, reducing the men on a large scale is the easiest way of producing an effect on the Estimates. But there may be a less costly organisation of the same number of men, and in the administration there may be a great deal of saving to be effected. I think my hon. and gallant friend himself was a little too hard on the ha'porth of tar. He said, "You will always be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar." If you carry that theory too far I am afraid there will be a great demand for tar, if they know that any excess in that article is to be regarded as perfectly harmless expenditure. I was brought up in the old school of Mr. Robert Lowe, who was a great economist and whom I have often heard from this place proclaiming, what I believe to be perfectly true, that although you do not deal with very large sums when you are saving on stationery and sealing wax and wafers, yet if you take no effort to save on the sealing wax and wafers you will be extra vagrant in other matters. Another thing which I do not agree with is this. I, like the rest of the world, am of the Blue Water school—
  1520
  that is to say, I am of opinion that the Navy is the main defence of these islands, and I yield to no reasonable person, in a desire to maintain the Navy in all the strength and efficiency that are necessary. But when I hear people saying that the country will not grudge any money spent on the Navy, I cannot imagine a more foolish and more mischievous assumption. We have only to go back a year or two to see that large sums can be saved from the Navy Estimates which were alleged to be absolutely essential for the safety of the country. I do not say at present that that can be done now, but I do say that, whether it be the Navy or the Army, when we see an opportunity of saving money we will save it, and we will endeavour to reduce the heavy burden which, as we think, unduly presses on the taxpayers of the country. I hope that my hon. friend will not press this Motion to a division. Although I thoroughly understand his keenness in the matter, and although, while this constant yearly development of expenditure was going on such Motions as this were, in my opinion, perfectly justified, and would be justified in the case of this or any other Government, if they were prosecuting the same course of spending more and more upon these services, yet, when you get a Government here which declares that it will do all it can, and strain every nerve to cause great reductions in military expenditure, that its honour and good faith are bound up with its doing it, then I think it is a little hard that such impatience should be shown. We have only had a few weeks to consider the whole question, and as our policy is the policy of peace and economy, because we believe that to be the policy also of strength and efficiency—because that is our policy, and because I am conscious that we deserve a little more confidence than my hon. friend is showing us by this Motion, I trust I may ask for that

  1521
  confidence. I promise, on behalf of the Government, that we will do all we can to fulfil, not the pledges or promises that any one has made, but the professions that we have put forward and the principles which possess us in regard to these matters.
  MR. GUESTsaid there was no man who believed more firmly in the necessity for a reduction in the expenditure upon the Army than he. He would remind hon. Members who were not Members of Parliament some years ago that he was the first man to move a reduction in the expenditure upon the Army, and he yielded to none in his desire to effect a reduction in the military expenditure of the country. He had always agreed with the view that war was the most futile and ferocious of human follies. He hated and disliked war, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke in his appeal in the direction of peace. He set great store upon the efforts which the Labour Party were making upon this question, for he believed that the efforts of the Labour movement the world over was more likely to ensure peace than all the best efforts of diplomatists in the past. He thought, however, that the intention of his hon. and gallant friend to divide on the reduction was ill-advised and hostile to the Government, and he appealed to him to withdraw the Amendment. If it was pressed to a division it ought to be resisted with all the force which the Government could command. He had looked upon this as a pro forma Motion, moved for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to the great desirability of moving in the direction of a reduction both in the number of the Army and the expenditure upon it, and it never entered his head that it was going to be pressed to a division. The Secretary of State for War last week made a pronouncement which met with the ap-
  1522
  proval of almost every section of the House, and he indicated in a way that left no room whatever for doubt that his object and the object of the Government was to effect a reduction in military expenditure. He thought that ought to be sufficient for them for the present. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had been in office only some three months and that he had already given a great earnest of the direction in which he was moving, they ought to be satisfied with that. Personally, he should not be satisfied with a reduction of 10,000 men, because 50,000 was what he hoped they might see next year. At present the Secretary of State for War had gone as far as any reasonable man could expect in the short time he had been in office. He again appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HUNT, who rose amid loud cries of "Seely, Seely," said that he was very glad to have heard the excellent speech made by the Secretary of State for War, and he was pleased to hear that he was in favour of a great national Reserve in case of emergency. In the present temper of the country he thought the only way in which they could get that great national reserve was by encouraging rifle and air-gun clubs. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide, divide."] They need not trouble to interrupt because he intended going on till twelve o'clock. The Labour Members appeared to think that they could do altogether without war. He was afraid that they were altogether wrong. On Member of the Labour Party had gone almost as far as to say that if they were attacked they would not retaliate. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. J. WARD:You had better attack me and see.
  MR. HUNTsaid he wished to say that for some unknown reason man was made a fighting animal, and until they altered that they were sure to have war. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] The defence of this country was not a Party question, and every Socialist ought to say that he was ready to defend his country. [Renewed interruptions and cries of "Divide, divide."]
  MR. KEIR HARDIE, rising to a point of order, said he had twice overheard the hon. Gentleman use the expression, "I do not care a damn." He asked whether the use of such expressions was permissible.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the expression did not reach him. It was quite disorderly.
  MR. HUNTendeavoured to continue his speech, but the cries of "Seely" were renewed.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that of course the hon. Member for Ludlow was in possession of the Committee, but he was sure the Committee desired to hear before 12 o'clock what course the hon.
  and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool wished to take.
  MR. HUNTsaid that in the circumstances he would give way.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that, deeply as he regretted to have to differ from the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War in this matter, he felt bound to go to a division. He had proposed a reduction in numbers which meant a reduction in money of about one and a-third millions on Army Estimates amounting to £29,500,000. This Parliament had been returned for the purpose of introducing economy. He had asked that this reduction should take place not this year, but next year. Since, therefore, they had no assurance whatever that we should not start again on the £29,500,000 basis, he felt that he must divide the Committee. He did not suppose many Members would follow him into the lobby, but, if he went alone, he would still make his protest against extravagance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 296. (Division List No. 16.)

  AYES.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hodge, John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Sullivan, Donald

  Brace, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Summerbell, T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jowett, F. W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Clough, W.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Thorne, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Vivian, Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Cox, Harold

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Money, L. G. Chiozza-

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  O'Grady, J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Major Seely and Mr. J. M. Robertson.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Cory, Clifford John

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Alden, Percy

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crooks, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalmeny, Lords

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt Hn. Sir H.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duckworth, James

  Keswick, William

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barker, John

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Kitson, Sir James

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Beale, W. P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beaumont, W C.B. (Hexham)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fell, Arthur

  Levy, Maurice

  Bertram, Julius

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Liddell, Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lough, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Branch, James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Maclean, Donald

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Joh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grant, Corrie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marnham, F. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Gulland, John W.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Cameron, Robert

  Haddock, George R.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Menzies, Walter

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cave, George

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Cherry, R. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Paul, Herbert

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'd

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  1526

  1527

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Phillipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

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

  Whitbread, Howard

  Rees, J. D.

  Snowdon, P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Spicer, Albert

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Starkey, John R.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Robinson, S.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williamson, G. W. (Worcester)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  Runciman, Walter

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Toulmin, George

  Winfrey, R.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Sears, J. E.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Shackleton, David James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  While the original Question was being put—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, seated and with his hat on, said: I desire to raise a point of order. May I respectfully ask whether there was not an arrangement at Question time, or, perhaps, an understanding arrived at, that this discussion should not terminate to-night? I do not desire to suggest that there is a question of bad faith or good faith, but—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must stop the right hon. Gentleman. This is not a point of order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite true, it is not.
  MR. HALDANE: May I say on that point—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Lords Message [12th March], communicating the following Resolution, "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire into the subject of Sunday Trading," considered.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the sad Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.