ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

HC Deb 27 March 1906 vol 154 cc1186-236

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

took the Chair.

Clause 1.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said he wanted to know in what order these clauses were going to be taken. He noticed that the first three clauses were similar to what they had been for some years past, but the fourth clause amended Section 44 of the Army Act. There were various other Amendments, and he wished to know how they were going to take these various clauses, because they were not arranged in any consecutive order.

THE CHAIRMAN

We are taking the Bill as it is, and we are taking it clause by clause.

COLONEL LEGGE

said that his difficulty was that they did not correspond with the sections of the Army Act.

THE CHAIRMAN

This is the Bill that we have to take, and we shall take it clause by clause.

COLONEL LEGGE

said there were various sections referred to in the clauses of this Bill. The Army Act consisted of a large number of sections—some of which were not mentioned in this Bill—to which he thought it was very desirable that attention should be called. He thought it was necessary that they should have an opportunity of calling attention to certain matters dealt with in the Army Act. He wished to refer to a question raised in Section 15.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member had better confine his remarks to the point which is now before the Chair. I would remind him that the whole of the Army Act cannot be discussed in detail now, and from what I can gather of his point, I am not so sure that it can be raised at all upon this Bill. At any rate this is not the time.

MR. HALDANE

said that he explained the whole scope of the Bill yesterday.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

asked if he could raise the question of the prices paid in the schedule.

THE CHAIRMAN

We have not come to that yet.

MR. CLAUD HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton, E.)

moved to leave out of Clause 1 the words— This Act may be cited as the Army (Annual) Act 1906. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had just stated that he explained the whole thing yesterday, but it was only a very short explanation, and this Bill contained some very great alterations in regard to such matters as punishments inflicted upon the soldiers.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Member is addressing himself to the question before the Committee, and he appears to be dealing with other clauses.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

submitted that he was dealing with Clause 1. What he wished to state to the Committee was that by the alterations described in the memorandum they were altering the whole purpose of the Army (Annual) Act in the sense that soldiers were no longer to be treated as they were under the old Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN

Those arguments certainly seem to me to come in at a later stage of this Bill. We are now dealing simply with Clause 1, which says "This Act may be cited as the Army (Annual) Act 1906."

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that was precisely what he objected to.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2:

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said he desired to allude to the days on which the Army Act would expire. The Act contained the three following sub-sections— (a) In the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, on the thirtieth day of April; and (b) Elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, also in the West Indies and America, on the thirty-first day of July; and (c) Elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, on the thirty-first day of December. He wished to know what the object was of maintaining all those sub-sections in the Army Bill from time to time.

MR. HALDANE

said the Army Act was only in operation from year to year, and it was necessary to make provision for the expiration of the Act upon different days in the more distant parts of the Empire. This clause followed the usual precedent by which they were allowed a little longer time in those parts of the world.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

asked what was the object of following this ancient custom. He really could not understand the object of it.

MR. HALDANE

said this had always been the custom, and there must be an appreciable difference in the time in which the arrangements can be made in the United Kingdom and places like Malta and the other more distant parts of the King's dominions. Consequently, the days had always been different.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said they had been told that this information could be conveyed by telegraph, and therefore he did not see the object of the provision. Although he could not see the object of it, yet he felt sure that it was a worthy custom.

MR. HALDANE

said it was a good old Conservative custom, and he trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would not press his objection to it.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

said that under the Bill which they were now discussing it was proposed to abolish flogging in the Army, and he quite agreed with that proposal. He wished, however, to point out that whilst a soldier within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man could not be flogged after the thirtieth of April, 1906, a soldier elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies, and America could be flogged up to the thirty-first day of July, 1906, and elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, the day fixed was the thirty-first day of December, 1906. He thought that was an anomalous position, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the Committee what steps he was taking in order that the soldiers in all parts of the Empire might receive equal treatment.

MR. HALDANE

explained that flogging could only take place under regulations, and instructions would be given by him that no flogging should take place in the interval between now and the time when this Bill would come into operation.

MR. FORSTER

said the House had expressed so strong a feeling in regard to the abolition of flogging in the Army that he thought the Committee would be quite ready to go to the expense of paying the cost of cablegrams to different parts of the Empire in order to prevent soldiers being flogged.

In reply to Lord Turnour,

MR. HALDANE

said the Act only applied to the subjects of the King.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that when the Army (Annual) Bill was before the House last year the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool desired that under this measure the Isle of Wight should be treated as a Colony, in order that the provisions of this Bill should come into operation at the same time as they came into force in the distant part of the Empire. He wished to know what the hon. Member for Abercromby wished to be done now with regard to the Isle of Wight. Did he still desire to have it dealt with as a Colony?

COLONEL LEGGE

Surely it does not take three months to communicate with Malta.

MR. HALDANE

said it had always been the custom to allow a longer time in those distant parts, and they had strictly followed precedents in the clause they were now discussing.

MR. FORSTER

said he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee but he did want to know particularly what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do in the matter. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He wished to remind hon. Members opposite that during the last session of Parliament they sat up all night on this question, principally discussing flogging in the Army. The House then took a very strong line, and that line had been reflected in the proposals which the Secretary of State for War had now made. The House had come to the determination that flogging in the Army should be abolished, and it was no answer to the question that he had raised for the right hon. Gentleman to say that different parts of the Empire were situated at varying distances from the metropolis. He wanted to know what steps the Secretary of State for War intended to take in order to secure that His Majesty's soldiers in all parts of His Majesty's dominions, however remote they might be from this House, should receive equal treatment after the 30th day of April this year.

MR. HALDANE

said the hon. Member had apparently not read the clause. Clause 2, which, they were now discussing, provided that the Army Act should remain in force up to the 30th day of April, 1907, within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man; up to the 31st day of July, 1907, elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America; and elsewhere up to the 31st day of December, 1907. This Act abolished flogging and as a matter of fact there would be no flogging in any of those places.

MR. FORSTER

said if the right hon. Gentleman would read the clause in his own Bill he would see that there was a period of time between the 30th day of April and the 31st day of July, 1906, during which flogging could take place in Malta, the West Indies, and America. Within the United Kingdom the Act would run from the 30th April this year and terminate on the 30th April next year. Elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America, it would run from the 31st July 1906, to the 31st July 1907. The period he specially wished to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to was from the 30th April until the 31st day of July this year. From this it appeared to him that during one period in one portion of His Majesty's dominions there would be one law, and in another portion there would be another law as from the 30th day of April this year until the 31st day of July this year. What steps did the right hon. Gentleman intend to take in order to secure that between the 30th April this year and the 31st July this year the same protection would be meted out to soldiers elsewhere in Europe, inclusive of Malta, the West Indies and America, as was meted out within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The Secretary of State for War had not told them what steps he intended to take to secure that the regulations in those remote parts of the Empire would be altered to bring them into consonance with the regulations in this country.

MR. HALDANE

said he could assure the hon. Member that flogging would be stopped in all parts of the Empire.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he had handed in an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because it was handed in after I had put the Question "that the clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLAUDE HAY,

who was greeted with cries of "Order, order" from the Ministerial Benches, said that he rose to move his Amendment just before the Chairman rose to put the Question.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot move an Amendment now, because I have put the clause, and the House is now discussing the whole clause.

MR. CLAUDE HAY,

proposed to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," but the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, refused to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill"

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport),

asked if it would be in order to refer to the system of reduction of fines from the pay of soldiers. If there was no objection to the deduction of fines from the soldiers' pay how was it that so much was said about the immorality of deducting fines from the pay of coolies, and truck generally.

MR. HALDANE

said he did not think that question arose under this Bill.

LORD BALCARRIES (Lancashire, N. Chorley)

said that under the Punishment Clause of the Army Act fines were specially mentioned.

COLONEL KENYON - SLANEY

hope the Secretary of State for War would indicate whether he could raise this point or not, as he wished to know whether this was a proper time to raise it.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

asked if it was not in order to discuss any of the provisions of the Army Act contemplated by this particular Section.

THE CHAIRMAN

No, it would not be in order to do that. The point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can be met only by a new clause.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he handed in a notice of Amendment and rose to move it, although perhaps he did not meet the Chairman eye. The Amendment he handed in was to omit Sub-section 1 of Clause 2 which was a Motion identical with the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Bristol last year. He submitted that his Amendment was in order, and he rose to move it at the right time.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's Amendment would have been perfectly in order if it had been moved at the right time. This only shows the great inconvenience of handing in Amendments at the last moment.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that surely in common fairness, if he was unable to hear the words of the Chairman owing to the interruption of hon. Members opposite, if he handed in an Amendment at the Table in due time and gave proper notice—

THE CHAIRMAN

I may state that the hon. Member actually spoke upon the clause itself before he handed in his Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "Name, name."]

MR. CLAUDE HAY

on a point of order, submitted that speaking to a clause did not prevent him having the right to move an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have ruled on that point.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

thought that inasmuch as the whole Army Act was raised by this Bill they were entitled on this occasion to discuss any point that was contained in the Army Act. Surely it would be competent for him to raise a point connected with the punishment of soldiers.

THE CHAIRMAN

I thought I had explained that to the right hon. Gentleman. The general scope of the Army Act does arise, but not the Army Act in detail. Otherwise we should have it before us clause by clause.

MR. KEIR HARDIE,

said that in the very last session of Parliament this same point was raised and it was then ruled that the Army Act could be discussed in detail.

THE CHAIRMAN

By means of new clauses.

MR. CLAUDE HAY,

said he submitted with all humility and with great respect to the Chair—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have already given my ruling on that point. The hon. Member's Amendment was handed in after he himself had spoken upon the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked if the Chairman would give his ruling upon the following point. He wished to know if an hon. Member spoke to a clause was he thereby excluded from moving any Amendment to that clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly, that is the rule.

LORD BALCARRES

asked if the putting of a clause from the Chair prevented any hon. Member from moving an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

I commence by naming Clause 1 or Clause 2, as the case may be, and that is the time for any hon. Member to get up to move Amendments of which notice has not been handed in, but after I have put the clause from the Chair hon. Members cannot move Amendments to the words of the clause.

MR CLAUDE HAY

asked if hon. Members did not happen to hear what was put from the Chair, did that preclude them from moving Amendments of which they had previously given notice?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must try and make myself a little more clear to hon. Members.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said he understood that this Bill was not necessary to stop flogging, because it could be done by regulations. If the right hon. Gentleman could stop flogging from now to the 31st July, why could he not continue to do so for the whole year, and what was the necessity for this clause?

MR. HALDANE

said this clause did not relate merely to flogging but to a variety of other things. It was withn the power of the Army Council to give directions that there should be no flogging in the Army. There was power under the Army Act to make regulations in regard to flogging, and they wished to take advantage of that power and say that there should, in future, be no power to flog any soldiers.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that this clause was really the whole body of the Act. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee how far the common soldier knew the provisions of the Army Act contained in the Bill now before the Committee. He wished to know what measures had been taken to make the recruit upon enlisting, and also the soldier, acquainted with the provisions of this Act, which amounted to some 200 or 300 pages and almost as many clauses. He wished to know what number of copies of this Act were available for the common soldier; and how far the Act was made understandable to him, and whether it was not a fact that the only copy available to the common soldier was that which was kept in the orderly room, which was the last place which the soldier desired to visit when in barracks? The whole thing was a farce and had been a farce for years. They all believed that in this Parliament they had opened up a new era. They wanted to discard Party politics and narrow divisions in this matter, and come to some common purpose and adopt some very humane interpretation of the conditions and regulations under which soldiers served their Sovereign. He appealed to the Committee to support the view he took, because it was a feeling which he had entertained for a good many years, but which, unfortunately, the Committee had always given the go-by to.

MAJOR SEELY

asked, if those were the views of the hon. Member, why he voted with the Government last year against the views which he had now expressed?

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he did not think he voted at all upon this question last session.

MAJOR SEELY

Oh, yes, you did.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division if he was going to vote with him this year. A common soldier knew no more than the man in the moon what the provisions of the Army Act were. This subject had been the sport of Parties in this House for a long time, and he was anxious that it should be removed from the arena of Party politics altogether. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Had the Secretary of State for War taken any measure to make the situation clear to the private soldier in respect to the alterations which would be in force after the passing of this Bill into law? He submitted that they were bound to realise that this Army Act was no kindness to the Army itself, because it was an Act which a man when he enlisted accepted almost as a chain round his neck, not merely whilst he was in the Army but even after he had served the King, and after he had left the ranks of His Majesty's Forces to join the great industrial army. He wished the Secretary of State for War, who had made a close study of the armies of the whole world, to show that in regard to this question he had taken a new, broad, and progressive view in this Bill. He hoped he would be able to show that he had introduced Amendments which would make the Act more humane and up-to-date in every respect, thus making the future of the soldier happier and brighter. He would reserve his remarks on the subject dealt with in the Memorandum which preceded this Bill, viz.: the alterations in nomenclature in regard to those unfortunate young men in military prisons. A stage had now been reached in this new Parliament when this must not be regarded as a hardy annual for the discussion of minor points which had characterised upon one occasion the discussion until 9 o'clock the next morning. They expected from the present Government, which held itself up as sympathetic to all the aspirations of labour in the Government's service, some greater ideal in this matter than was comprised in merely saying ditto to what their predecessors at the War Office had done. On the question of courts-martial he had endeavoured to extract from his right hon. friend some information in regard to what appeared to be a gross scandal. He referred to the case of a private soldier who enjoyed an Irish name. He regretted that in regard to this Question the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to give him the usual routine Answers from the War Office, and he could not help saying that they were the Answers of the officials, and were not replies based upon the right hon. Gentleman's own examination of the subject. The case he raised was that of a man who was tried at 11 o'clock by a court-martial of which he received notice at 8 o'clock the same morning. Under the regulations every soldier was entitled to twenty-four hours' notice, but this Irishman was sentenced after only three hours notice to a long term of imprisonment. The main testimony upon which he was convicted was that he bore upon his left fore-arm certain marks, whereas as a matter of fact he bore no marks at all on his left because they were on his right arm. He had never been able to get from the War Minister what had happened to the officers who convicted that man upon evidence which the greatest simpleton would have been able to measure up, viz., that he had a mark on his left arm when it was actually on his right arm. This might be a matter for hilarity with hon. Members opposite but it was not for the unfortunate man who suffered this ignominy. This Act allowed the continuance and gross injustices of all the worst forms of Russian autocracy, and he for one was prepared to sit up all night until the Secretary of State gave definite declarations that he would organise courts-martial—upon such a basis that gross outrages of this kind could not be perpetrated on soldiers. [MINISTERIAL Interruptions.] It might be more convenient for hon. Members opposite to go home, but he was prepared to stay and insist upon a reply from the Government upon this important question. The present Government came into power to remove all the ills and injustices and to do away with all the iniquities which were alleged to have been perpetrated by the last Government. The next thing he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War was whether he could see his way in regard to courts-martial to assimilate the practice which had long prevailed with such admirable results in the Navy and adopt a similar system in regard to the Army. Why on earth did an officer in the Army if accused of some dereliction of duty, or some omission or commission, suffer loss of his position and be cast upon the world with a stain upon his character which he could never remove? Why in this respect could they not have the same practice with regard to the Army as was in force in regard to the Navy? There had been a sinister practice which allowed the authorities of the Army to tell a man he had better leave the Army without reason assigned. Such a man might have against him merely a whisper which was worse than the open word. If they got in the Navy a system of courts-martial which had worked so much to the benefit of the service, why should the sister service not have the same benefit? He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he could not include the suggestion he had made in the reforms of the Army which he had undertaken.

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

expressed his regret that the Government had not brought on the discussion of such an important measure as this before 12 o'clock. This was a Bill which to some extent affected the liberties and the lives of some 300,000 of their fellow citizens. He did not forget that a great many reforms were wrung out of the Government at all-night sittings. He regretted that the Act referred to was not fully recited, because there was no other way of understanding it. They ought to fully understand on behalf of the working men whom they professed to represent whether under the Army Act with or without regulations flogging could take place. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide, divide."] He did not think there ought to be any attempt to prevent the discussion of such an important matter simply because hon. Members opposite had not read the Army Act and did not know anything about it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Would the right hon. Gentleman give him a distinct assurance that under the Army Act as it now existed no flogging could take place.

COLONEL KENYON - SLANEY

thought he was fairly entitled without moving any specific Amendment to ask for information on matters directly connected with the treatment of those individuals who were subject to military law. He wished to ask whether he was entitled to avail himself of this opportunity, because this might be the only opportunity he would have of raising the question.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the right hon. Gentleman will put his Question I will rule upon it.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to continue to maintain in force the practice of punishment which consisted in deducting fines from the pay of the private soldier.

MR. HALDENE

said there was nothing in this Bill which touched that question,

COLONEL KENYON SLANEY

But do you propose to alter that practice?

MR. HALDANE

No, we do not.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was willing to assimilate the practice in the Army to that of the Navy in regard to courts-martial dealing with surrenders by military officers. Last session he remembered that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean made a long speech upon this very subject and he pressed for an answer from Mr. Brodrick, but he did not get much satis- faction beyond the statement that the military authorities would consider whether they could assimilate the practice.

MR. HALDANE

said that in the Army the theory was that the governing power could dismiss any officer from the service, on proper cause shown. Secondly, there had always been the practice of holding courts of inquiry. That had often proved a merciful practice, because then they were placed in a position to estimate whether it should be followed up by a court-martial, and courts of inquiry were instituted in order to inform the mind of the commanding authority as to whether a soldier should be dismissed, or dealt with in one form or another, or committed to a court-martial. It was, not always in the interests of the soldier that there should be a court-martial. He thought the courts of inquiry when properly conducted were a very useful institution, and he should not like to say that every one against whom a charge was made should be necessarily court-martialled.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said this question was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the surrenders in South Africa. It was thought by many hon. Members of the House that a court-martial upon any officer who surrendered would be preferable to a court of inquiry, and he confessed that he did not think Mr. Brodrick gave them much elucidation of that subject.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Nor of any other subject.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said he should be glad to know whether the Secretary of State for War thought a continuance of the present system would be sufficient, or whether he was of opinion that a reconsideration of the question would be a good thing for the soldier. He thought the court of inquiry was a merciful thing in many cases.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he wished to propose an Amendment to Section 4 of the Army Act. He gathered from the practice which had obtained in previous years that the right course seemed to be to bring up a new clause for insertion in the Army Act which it was proposed to renew. He took it that the proper place to do it would be by way of addition to that section.

THE CHAIRMAN

No Amendment can be moved to this clause.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he was under the impression that if they passed Sub-section 2 as it stood, they would not be precluded from proposing a new clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will not be precluded from moving any new clause which is in order.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said Clause 2 enacted that from certain dates the Army Act should take effect. In the other section it would be found that they were merely trifling with the Act, by calling imprisonment detention and suchlike trivialities.

THE CHAIRMAN

That question does not arise now, but upon a subsequent clause. We are now discussing only Clause 2.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that the whole of the Army Act was re-enacted by this particular section, with the exception of those trifling matters referred to in other parts of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes, the Army Act is being re-enacted by this section, but the alterations are dealt with in later clauses of this Bill.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said the answer given by the Secretary of State for War was most unsatisfactory; in fact it was no answer at all. He stated that in the Army there were courts of inquiry which were more lenient than courts-martial. If courts-martial were worked so well in the Navy, why should the same practice not be adopted in regard to the Army? In the Navy courts-martial prevailed where they did not prevail in the Army, and they ought not to be content until the Army had the same measure of courts-martial as obtained in the Navy. Then there was that section of the forces in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman in the speech he delivered, when the Army Estimates were presented to the House, adumbrated certain great intentions—he referred, of course, to the Militia. The law which was established by this Bill made a Militiaman and Volunteer not subject to all the penalties and disabilities which a soldier would be subjected to if this measure was passed, unless in his unit he was commanded by an officer of the regular forces. Surely the Secretary of State for War desired to put all those who served in the armed forces of the Crown under one system of discipline.

MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said that in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite he would not lengthen his remarks, but having studied this subject very closely, and being aware of its importance, he urged the Secretary of State for War to give some information as to his intention upon this Question.

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

said it struck him, as a new Member of this House, that when such a serious subject was under consideration a more suitable opportunity ought to have been given for discussing it. With every wish to treat this Question seriously, it did seem to him very unfair that such a large subject should be brought on now. To see the levity with which this Question was treated by hon. Members on the Ministerial side, one would really think that this Bill, upon which the whole existence of the Army depended, was a matter to be treated as something of no importance. It was not consistent with, the dignity of the House to treat this Question in such a way.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

said if the hon. Member had been in the House for the last five years he would have known, all about the dignity of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Member for Barkston Ash be good enough to apply himself to the Question before the Committee?

MR. LANE-FOX

said he was sorry if he had wandered from the scope of the debate. The point he wished to make was the way in which the House had treated this great subject and the levity which the hon. Members on the Ministerial side had displayed in regard to it. The question raised by the hon. Member for Hoxton about the way in which this Act was brought before the notice of the soldiers was very important, because the present system was an absolute farce. The provisions of the Act were not properly brought before the notice of the members of His Majesty's forces. As a rule, when a person joined a force, a long list of the punishments were read over to him in an almost inaudible voice, and all he heard were certain phrases such as "punishable by death," and other phrases of a similar character. That was an absolute farce, and it was not the way soldiers should be treated. It seemed to him that they did not do their duty by the forces of the Crown. Their object should be to make the Army more popular. It was only upon occasions like this that questions of discipline could be discussed, and they ought to be gone into more fully.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not discussing the Question before the Chair, and I may add that he has hardly said one single word that is relevant.

MR. LANE-FOX

said he would not discuss the matter further, and thanked the House for the kindness they had shown in listening to him.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that this Act, which was sought to be re-enacted by this section, bristled from one end to the other with pains and penalties. It seemed to him that the Army was recruited with pains and penalties and they were trying to keep it together with pains and penalties, and the only thing the private soldier heard when these things were read over to him was a series of pains and penalties ranging from death down to various small punishments. That was not the way to make an efficient Army. If they wished to have a strong Army they must recruit the men from the right sort of people, and the Army regulations would have to be such that persons joining would have some prospects of earning a decent living.

THE CHAIRMAN

That has nothing whatever to do with the Question before the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 28).

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brooke, Stopford	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Adkins, W. Ryland	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Agnew, George William	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Eve, Harry Trelawney
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cairns, Thomas	Everett, R. Lacey
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Caldwell, James	Fenwick, Charles
Barnard, E. B.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Ferens, T. R.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Cawley, Frederick	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Beale, W. P.	Channing, Francis Allston	Findlay, Alexander
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Cherry, R. R.	Fuller, J. M. F.
Beck, A. Cecil	Clough, W.	Fullerton, Hugh
Bellairs, Carlyon	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Bennett, E. N.	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Ginnell, L.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Bertram, Julius	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Billson, Alfred	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)	Cremer, William Randal	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Boland, John	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Gulland, John W.
Bowerman, C. W.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Brace, William	Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Halpin, J.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Brigg, John	Duckworth, James	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brodie, H. C.	Duffy, William J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Meagher, Michael	Rowlands, J.
Hayden, John Patrick	Micklem, Nathaniel	Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Montague, E. S.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hazleton, Richard	Montgomery, H. H.	Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)
Hedges, A. Paget	Money, J. J.	Seaverns, J. H.
Henry, Charles S.	Morrell, Philip	Seely, Major J. B.
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)
Higham, John Sharp	Murphy, John	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hooper, A. G.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Horniman, Emslie John	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nolan, Joseph	Stanger, H. Y.
Idris, T. H. W.	Norton, Captain Cecil William	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Strachey, Sir Edward
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Nuttall, Harry	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sullivan, Donal
Joyce, Michael	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Sutherland, J. E.
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Dowd, John	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe))
Kilbride, Denis	O'Malley, William	Toulmin, George
Lambert, George	O'Mara, James	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	O'Shee, James John	Ure, Alexander
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Paul, Herbert	Verney, F. W.
Lehmann, R. C.	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton	Walters, John Tudor
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Pollard, Dr.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Levy, Maurice	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E	Waterlow, D. S.
Lewis, John Herbert	Radford, G. H	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lough, Thomas	Rainy, A. Rolland	White, George (Norfolk)
Lupton, Arnold	Raphael, Herbert H.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Reddy, M.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S	Rees, J. D.	Whitley, J. H (Halifax)
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Renton, Major Leslie	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
M'Arthur, William	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.
M'Kenna, Reginald	Richardson, A.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
M'Killop, W.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Winfrey, R.
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
M'Micking, Major G.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	George Whiteley und Mr.
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Robinson, S.	J. A. Pease.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Marnham, F. J.	Rose, Charles Day
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Hamilton, Marquess of	Seddon, J.
Ashley, W. W.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Starkey, John R.
Balcarres, Lord	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds	Summerbell, T.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hunt, Rowland	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester	Jowett, F. W.	Turnour, Viscount
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R)
Bull, Sir William James	Liddell, Henry
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Macpherson, J. T.	Watson Rutherford and
Courthope, G. Loyd	O'Grady, J.	Mr. Claude Hay.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dalrymple, Viscount	Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 3:—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

LORD TURNOUR

said he wished to raise the question of the breakfast which was given to the soldier.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be much more convenient to raise that subject when the schedule is reached.

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

said he desired to move an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I put the Question and I gave the hon. Member for Hoxton his chance. I may say that the hon. Member's Amendment is not in order because it would not make sense of the clause.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said his Amendment was in the actual wording of an Amendment accepted by the Chairman last session.

THE CHAIRMAN

This Amendment as not the same at all.

Clause 4:—

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington)

said he wished to ask one or two questions about this new policy of detention. This was a proposal to prevent soldiers convicted of purely military offences from being subjected to the stigma attaching to imprisonment. It was, however, quite a new punishment, and they ought to know exactly what the punishment consisted of. He had had many men under him at various times and he was sorry to say that he had had in his battalion men who had been to prison, and he had seen the bad effects which a long period of imprisonment in a civil prison had had upon the men in the Army. He wished to know if it would not be possible in the case of men detained for purely military offences to have them taught some trade or some method of shooting practice with military rifles whilst being detained. Instead of doing what was done in the old days, namely, subjecting the soldier to the ordinary treatment which was meted out to civilian prisoners, they ought under the new system to try and make the period of detention one which would tend towards the improvement of the soldier. He would like the Secretary of State for War to tell them exactly what detention meant, for he felt sure that the Committee, and in particular all old soldiers, would be very glad to hear his explanation. As regarded imprisonment, he drew a clear line between punishment for military offences and punishment for offences of a disgraceful character. If a soldier was found guilty of an offence of a disgraceful character, the sooner he was turned out of the force the better. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to draw a very straight and clear line between these two classes of offences, and between the punishment to be meted out to them.

THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL)

had meantime taken the Chair temporarily.

MR. HALDANE

having risen to reply,

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is no question before the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. FORSTER

asked, if under the Chairman's ruling it was impossible to move an Amendment before the clause had been put, when was it in order to move an Amendment?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It was quite in order for the right hon. Member who spoke last to have concluded by moving an Amendment, but he did not do so; therefore, there was no Question before the Committee, and as the Secretary of State for War got up to reply, I had to put a Question in order that he might make his reply, Consequently, the Question I put was "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

MR. FORSTER

asked if it was essential in their discussions that any hon. Member who rose to speak first should move an Amendment, and on his failing to move an Amendment, did that prevent other hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they might sit, from moving Amendments?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Failure on the part of an hon. Member who speaks first to move an Amendment would not preclude any other hon. Member from moving an Amendment. In this instance, however, no one rose to move any Amendment, and as the Secretary of State for War was commencing his reply and there was no Question before the House, I put the Question that the clause stand part.

MR. FORSTER

said he did not wish to take up time unnecessarily, but the point he was raising was one of importance. His hon. friend put a specific Question to the right hon. Gentleman who got up at once to reply. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman got up, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side naturally refrained from rising in order to move Amendments. If the mere fact that a Minister on the front Ministerial Bench rose immediately after a Question had been addressed to him was to prevent anyone from moving an Amendment, it seemed to him that it would be impossible for anyone to get a proper opportunity of proposing Amendments.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

When I rose I stated distinctly that there was no Question before the Committee. That then was the time for hon. Members to have notified any Amendment they desired to move. As no one rose to do so, and as there was no Question before the Committee I had no other course but to put the clause.

MR. FORSTER,

on a point of order, was proceeding to further discuss the matter—

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think this point has now been thoroughly discussed, and I call upon the Secretary of State for War.

MR. FORSTER,

amid cries of "Order, order," said he desired to know how it was possible that an Amendment could be moved until the Question had been put from the Chair.

THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN

As I have said, an Amendment might have been moved when I rose and called "Order, order." There was then no Question before the Committee, and that was the time for anyone to have got up and moved an Amendment. No one got up, and therefore I had to put a Question before the Committee, and the only Question I could put was "that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked whether, if an hon. Member handed in at the Table a notice of an Amendment and rose to move it and the Chairman called upon someone else, was he ipso facto precluded from moving it? That was the effect of the ruling which the Chairman had given.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have nothing to do with any previous rulings Before I put the Question I made inquiry if any Amendments to this clause had been handed in, and as no notices of Amendments had been given I put the Question.

MR. HALDANE

said he was in agreement with all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellington had said. The change made in the clause was little more than a change in name. When they sentenced the soldier to imprisonment, whilst he was undergoing that imprisonment he would wear uniform and not prison clothes, and for hard labour he would have drill and other military exercises. It was now proposed to substitute for imprisonment the term "detention in barracks," and the prisoner would be subjected to military exercises and drill which would tend to assist his career as a soldier. With regard to the question of whether it would be possible to teach such soldiers whilst undergoing imprisonment civilian trades, that was a subject which was worthy of attention, but in order to do it they would have to make provision for it of a special character.

LORD BALCARRES

said that he had awaited the statement of the Secretary of State for War before suggesting that any Amendment should be moved. Had his explanation been unsatisfactory he imagined that it would have been within his power to move an Amendment accordingly. He wished to ask, however, for a little further information on the question as to the place where the soldiers undergoing detention were to be confined. The memorandum said that the soldiers undergoing detention would be confined in detention barracks. What were detention barracks and where were they? Was this to be a new class of military prison under a more euphemistic name, or did it mean that the existing barracks or some portion of them would be called ordinary barracks and the other detention barracks? He thought it was necessary that there should be some further definition of what this detention was to be, so that it would not be reduced to a complete farce.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he was opposed to this clause being passed as part of the Bill, because he considered it nothing more nor less than a piece of rank hypocrisy. Hon. Members had protested against this kind of thing for years.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not discussing the clause.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that this clause did not abolish death as the punishment, because it occurred a good many times in the Act. Subsection 3 of Clause 4 provided that instead of the words "death or penal servitude or of imprisonment" there should be substituted the words "death, penal servitude or imprisonment, or other detention." Therefore, the words "or other detention" were to be added at the end. If the Government were serious in proposing any real amelioration of the soldier's lot there would be something reasonable to discuss, but to come here with a section like this, simply juggling with phrases, and asking the Committee seriously to pass a section which consisted of altering one word from another in order to take away the stigma attaching to imprisonment for military offences, was simply the kind of hypocrisy which had been the leading note of the Government proposals this session. It was the same kind of thing as the alleged extravagances in the Army Estimates which the Government said they were going to put an end to. Instead of doing this the Government came down with a piffling clause like this which simply altered phrases, and then claimed that they had made the lot of the soldier better. The effect of these proposals was that the Government were going to deal with these offences exactly in the same way as before, but they were going to call the punishment by a nicer name. Anything more utterly hypocritical, hollow, and stupid he had never had the opportunity of witnessing. He had seen many stupid things done in Parliament

MR. JOYCE

In the shipping line?

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that in reply to that unmannerly interruption he might say that he was not in the shipping line. It was because these suggestions did not make any alteration whatever in the soldier's lot, but simply juggled with words and phrases, that he objected to them, and he should vote against this clause if he went into the lobby alone.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he had intimated in an earlier part of the proceedings that he should have something to say upon military prisons. He had addressed Questions to the Secretary for War as to the number of military prisoners detained in civil prisons, and the reply he gave indicated the number of soldiers who for various offences underwent punishment in the local and convict prisons. What he wished to know in regard to this clause was what arrangement the Secretary of State for War proposed to make to prevent a certain number of these men who were sent to local prisons being sent to those places of incarceration. At the present moment there were a number of men sentenced for petty offences—and they were mostly young men and practically boys—who had placed upon them that which no civilian ever had, namely, a taint which not only ran all through their military career but followed them right through their civil life after leaving the Army. That was a scandal and a reproach upon the Army, and a matter which ought to be dealt with immediately by the Secretary of State for War. Three or four years ago, during the war in South Africa, ship loads of soldiers who had been sentenced for minor offences were sent to South Africa, and the Prison Commissioners suddenly received an order for these men to be imprisoned, and it was an absolute fact that soldiers were put into cells which from the point of view of health had been condemned as unfit for even murderers. It was a perfect disgrace that the arrangements in the Army permitted of such a state of things. He invited the Secretary of State for War to consider very seriously the point that soldiers who might get into petty street rows or commit other small offences should not be handed over to the police, but should be brought more and more under the control of the military authorities, in order that they might be treated more upon the lines that "boys will be boys," and not be submitted to a state of things which meant that for ever after they would have a stain upon their character. This memorandum asked the Committee to believe that some very great change had been made in the system of military punishments, because they were now going to be allowed to wear uniforms instead of that worn by prisoners in the common prisons. There was nothing to show that what was contained in this portentous memorandum made any real stride in advance in dealing with the punishment of young men who, for some small offence or other, were committed to military prisons. What would these youngsters know of the Army Act?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! We not are dealing with the memorandum at the present time, but with Clause 4.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

submitted that the memorandum explained Clause 4. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"] Clause 4 provided that there should be a certain change of the condition under which prisoners were committed to military prisons where they had to undergo punishments. He incurred some great unpopularity some three or four years ago for making hon. Members opposite miss their trains because he insisted upon getting a hearing for military prisoners confined in military gaols. Not long after that time he noticed that upon one day 712 men were liberated from civil prisons where they had been detained for various military offences. He appealed most earnestly—and everybody sitting on the Opposition benches he was sure would endorse his appeal—to the Secretary of State for War, not merely in this matter to make a difference in nomenclature relating to the term of imprisonment, but to go a step further forward and to see that young men who wore the King's uniform and committed minor civil or even great military offences were dealt with more leniently, and were never put into civil prisons if it could possibly be prevented. Civil prisons were only open to military offenders if they committed some felony from a civil point of view. They were not, however, common felons, but men who in their youth might have committed offences against this Bill, the provisions of which were absolutely unknown to them and who were consequently subjected to terms of imprisonment which would never be undergone by a man if he had not joined the Army, although he might have committed far greater offences than those committed by the soldier.

CAPTAIN BARING

said that the subjects dealt with by courts-martial had been altered so as to include this new sentence of detention. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman wished to go on with the system of having courts-martial sitting for three months.

LORD TURNOUR

said he agreed with what the hon. Member for Chorley had said. He wished to know if provision had been made in the present Estimates for these detention barracks, and he should also like to know whether they would be separated from the rest of the barracks. Would they be a sort of compound or would they be connected with the rest of the barracks. He did not think the name was a good one, and he should really like some precise explanation of what detention barracks were.

MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

said if the Secretary of State for War would compare the proposed Amendments in Section 4 with the present clauses of the Army Act he would see some curious inconsistencies which he was sure he would be desirous of remedying while the Bill was in Committee. There was, for instance, the scale of punishments in Section 44 of the Army Act. Each punishment in the scale was greater than the one which followed it, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to do away with the ignominies of "imprisonment" by replacing the word "detention" he would not accomplish it in this way, because "detention" would be a severer punishment than "discharge with ignominy" which followed it. If "detention" was intended to be less severe than "imprisonment," why did the right hon. Gentleman defeat his own object by adding the proviso that— For the purposes of commutation and revision of punishment detention shall not be deemed to be a less punishment than imprisonment if the term of detention is longer than the term of imprisonment. Surely Section 21 required amendment to enable this punishment of detention to be properly worked in with the rest of the Army Act. It was impossible to introduce a new word into one of the sections of the Army Act and not into the other sections. The Amendments as proposed in this Bill were absolute nonsense if they were considered in reference to Proviso 10. He noticed that in Subsection 4 the word "accused" was substituted for the word "prisoner," but why was this alteration not carried out right through the Army Act? In the interests of the Army and the officers who had to administer the Act let the right hon. Gentleman see that all these Amendments should be made to apply to the whole of the Act, because as they stood at the present time they made absolute nonsense. He wished to know whether detention barracks had been provided for in the Estimates.

MR. JOYCE

said he had been an impatient listener to a good deal of what had been said. He had heard this Bill described in various terms, but he would like to speak of it from a Labour point of view. He wished to know whether officers and men were placed on the same footing when they committed the same offences. He did not think they were. If the present War Minister would stand up and say that every man in the Army was treated equally before the law then he should be quite satisfied. He did not care much about the Army Annual Bill, but when he heard that there was one law for the private soldier and another for the officer he thought it was quite time that this state of things should be changed. He stood up to voice the opinions of working men who demanded that this law should be changed. He would like to ask the present War Secretary what had been done in regard to the men who quite recently tarred and feathered a brother officer. Were they prisoners, and would they be subjected to the same punishment as a private soldier? If the right hon. Gentleman said they would, then let him have his Bill, but if not it was quite time the law should be changed, and he was prepared to sit all through the night to see that justice was done and that officers and men were placed in the same position.

MR. HALDANE

said there was no offence committed by a private soldier which was not equally an offence if committed by an officer. There was no difference in the offence or in the liability to imprisonment. He thought the hon. Member opposite would find that he had been quoting from an old Army Act; the difficulties he had referred to did not exist in the amended form of the Act. With regard to detention barracks, there was no magic about it. It was left to the administrators of the Act to say that certain parts should be used as detention barracks.

LORD BALCARRES

said it was obvious that this matter had not been fully thought out. If they wore going to locate a special part of the barracks for detention they would have practically to start a new system of military prisons. He suggested as a protest, not against the system, but against their inability to move amendments, that they ought to have a new clause added to the Bill dealing with this question.

LORD CASTLEREAGH

said he did not see the object of attempting to delude the soldier by telling him that detention was better than imprisonment. He should like to know what relation "detention" bore to "confinement to barracks."

LORD TURNOUR

said he hoped before the sense of the House was taken that the Secretary of State for War would tell them why the term "detention barracks" had been invented.

Clause 5:

LORD BALCARRES

moved that the first 4 lines of Clause 5 be omitted. He said that this would give the Secretary of State for War an opportunity of explaining in fuller detail the object and necessity of the clause.

MR. WHITLEY

said the proposal would make absolute nonsense of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think it will make sense, and an Amendment which will not make sense of the clause is not in order.

LORD BALCARRES

said his object was not to move an Amendment but to get an explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to the necessity of this clause. He moved the omission of sub-section 1.

Amendment proposed— To omit Sub-section 1."—(Lord Balcarres.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. HALDANE

said there was great need for this clause. There were a considerable number of persons who enlisted in the Yeomanry and other branches of the regular forces, and many of them had enlisted for service in the colonies. There had been cases of desertion from the Regular Army in order to get the higher pay in colonial regiments during war. The possibilities of enlisting in Colonial Forces were greater to-day than they were years ago. If the noble Lord would read Section 13 of the Army Act he would see the necessity of this clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TURNOUR

moved that for the words "Yeomanry" the words "Imperial Yeomanry" should be substituted. The word "Yeomanry" was no longer used in the official papers. The doings of the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa were fresh in all their memories, and they were proud of the Imperial Yeomanry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words "Imperial Yeomanry" to be substituted for the word "Yeomanry."

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 10, after the word 'The' to insert the word 'Imperial.'"—(Viscount Turnour.)—

Question put, "That the,word 'Imperial' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 29.)

AYES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Ashley, W. W.	Forster, Henry William	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Balcarres, Lord	Hamilton, Marquess of	Starkey, John R.
Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester)	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S.Edm'ds)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hunt, Rowland	TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Viscount Turnour and
Courthope, G. Loyd	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Viscount Castlereagh.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E	Liddell, Henry
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Beale, W. P.	Bertram, Julius
Adkins, W. Ryland	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham	Billson, Alfred
Agnew, George William	Beck, A. Cecil	Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Bellairs, Carlyon	Boland, John
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bennett, E. N.	Bowerman, C. W.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Berridge, T. H. D.	Brace, William
Bramsdon, T. A.	Idris, T. H. W.	Pollard, Dr.
Brigg, John	Illingworth, Percy H.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.
Brodie, H. C.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Radford, G. H.
Brooke, Stopford	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jowett, F W.	Reddy, M.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Joyce, Michael	Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Rees, J. D.
Cairns, Thomas	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ronton, Major Leslie
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Kilbride, Denis	Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th
Cherry, R. R.	Lambert, George	Richardson, A.
Clough, W.	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Ridsdale, E. A.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W	Lehmann, R. C.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Lever, A. Levy (Essex Harwich	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Levy, Maurice	Robinson, S.
Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth)	Lewis, John Herbert	Rose, Charles Day
Cullinan, J.	Lough, Thomas	Rowlands, J.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co	Lupton, Arnold	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Scott, AH (Ashton under Lyne)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Macpherson, J. T.	Seaverns, J. H.
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Seddon, J.
Duckworth, James	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Seely, Major J. B.
Duffy, William J.	M'Arthur, William	Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	M'Kenna, Reginald	Sheehy, David
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Killop, W.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ellis, Rt. Hon, John Edward	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Eve, Harry Trelawney	M'Micking, Major G.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Everett, R. Lacey	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Sinclair, Rt. Hn. John
Fenwick, Charles	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Stanger, H. Y.
Ferens, T. R.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Strachey, Sir Edward
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Marnham, F. J.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Findlay, Alexander	Meagher, Michael	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sullivan, Donal
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Montagu, E. S.	Summerbell, T.
Ginnell, L.	Montgomery, H. H.	Sutherland, J. E.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb.John	Mooney, J. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Greenwood, G. (Pererborough	Morrell, Philip	Taylor, Theodore C. Radcliffe)
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Toulmin, George
Gulland, John W.	Murphy, John	Ure, Alexander
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw	Verney, F. W.
Halpin, J.	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster	Walters, John Tudor
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Nolan, Joseph	Ward, W. Dudley (Southamt'n
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Waterlow, D. S.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, George (Norfolk)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Nuttall, Harry	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hazleton, Richard	O'Dowd, John	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Hedges, A Paget	O'Grady, J.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Henry, Charles S.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Winfrey, R.
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S	O'Malley, William
Higham, John Sharp	O'Shee, James John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Hooper, A. G.	Parker, James (Halifax)	George Whiteley and Mr.
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N)	Paul, Herbert	J. A. Pease.
Horniman, Emslie John	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

MR. HALDANE

said he had a great appreciation of the desire of the noble Lord to commemorate the services of the Yeomanry, but much as he appreciated their services he did not see his way to setting up a monument to them in an Act of Parliament. This clause was in accordance with precedent, and it would not be altered by adding a word which had no legal effect.

LORD CASTLEREAGH

thought they should receive some assurance that the word "Imperial" had been omitted through an oversight.

Mr. WHITLEY

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

thought the name should be the Imperial Yeomanry, and the right hon. Gentleman was only opposing it because it came from the Opposition side of the House.

MR. HALDANE

claimed, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 30.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Montgomery, H. H.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Mooney, J. J.
Agnew, George William	Gulland, John W.	Morrell, Philip
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Halpin, J.	Murphy, John
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Beale, W. P.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Nolan, Joseph
Beck, A. Cecil	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Bellairs, Carlyon	Haworth, Arthur A.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Bennett, E. N.	Hayden, John Patrick	Nuttall, Harry
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Bertram, Julius	Hazleton, Richard	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Billson, Alfred	Hedges, A. Paget	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Henry, Charles S.	O'Dowd, John
Boland, John	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Grady, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Brace, William	Hooper, A. G.	O'Malley, William
Bramsdon, T. A.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.	O'Shee, James John
Brigg, John	Horniman, Emslie John	Parker, James (Halifax)
Brodie, H. C.	Idris, T. H. W.	Paul, Herbert
Brooke, Stopford	Illingworth, Percy H.	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pollard, Dr.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Radford, G. H.
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Jowett, F. W.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Cairns, Thomas	Joyce, Michael	Raphael, Herbert H.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Reddy, M.
Cherry, R. R.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Claugh, W.	Kilbride, Denis	Rees, J. D.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Lambert, George	Renton, Major Leslie
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lehmann, R. C.	Richardson, A.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich	Ridsdale, E. A.
Cullinan, J.	Levy, Maurice	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Lewis, John Herbert	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Lough, Thomas	Robinson, S.
Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway	Lupton, Arnold	Rose, Charles Day
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Rowlands, J.
Duckworth, James	Macpherson, J. T.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Duffy, William J.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Seaverns, J. H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	M'Arthur, William	Seddon, J.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	M'Kenna, Reginald	Seely, Major J. B.
Eve, Harry Trelawney	M'Killop, W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Everett, R. Lacy	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Sheehy, David
Fenwick, Charles	M'Micking, Major G.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ferens, T. R.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Findlay, Alexander	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Fuller, J. M. F.	Marnham, F. J.	Stanger, H. Y.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Meagher, Michael	Strachey, Sir Edward
Ginnell, L.	Micklem, Nathaniel	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Montagu, E. S.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Sullivan, Donal	Walters, John Tudor	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Summerbell, T.	Ward, W Dudley (Southampton	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Sutherland, J. E.	Waterlow, D. S.	Winfrey, R.
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	White, George (Norfolk)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Toulmin, George	White, Luke (York, E. R.)	George Whiteley and Mr.
Ure, Alexander	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	J. A. Pease.
Verney, F. W.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig,Captain James (Down,E.)	Liddell, Henry
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Starkey, John R.
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Hamilton, Marquess of	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hunt, Rowland	Watson Rutherford and
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Viscount Turnour.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committed divided:—Ayes,180; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 31.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Duffy, William J.	Kearley, Hudson E.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Agnew, George William	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kilbride, Denis
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lambert, George
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lehmann, R. C.
Beale, W. P.	Fenwick, Charles	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Ferens, T. R.	Levy, Maurice
Beck, A. Cecil	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lewis, John Herbert
Bellairs, Carlyon	Findlay, Alexander	Lough, Thomas
Bennett, E. N.	Fuller, J. M. F.	Lupton, Arnold
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lyell, Charles Henry
Bertram, Julius	Ginnell, L.	Macpherson, J. T.
Billson, Alfred	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Black, Arthur W (Bedfordshire	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Boland, John	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Arthur, William
Bowerman, C. W.	Gulland, John W.	M'Kenna, Reginald
Brace, William	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	M'Killop, W.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Halpin, J.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brigg, John	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	M'Micking, Major G.
Brodie, H. C.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brooke, Stopford	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hayden, John Patrick	Marnham, F. J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Meagher, Michael
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Hazleton, Richard	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cairns, Thomas	Hedges, A. Paget	Montagu, E. S.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Henry, Charles S.	Montgomery, H. H.
Cherry, R. R.	Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)	Mooney, J. J.
Clough, W.	Higham, John Sharp	Morrell, Philip
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Hooper, A. G.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.	Murphy, John
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Horniman, Emslie John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Craig,Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Idris, T. H. W.	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Cullinan, J.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Nolan, Joseph
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Devlin,CharlesRamsay (Galway	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Nuttall, Harry
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jowett, F. W.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Duckworth, James	Joyce, Michael	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
O'Dowd, John	Robinson, S.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
O'Grady, J.	Rose, Charles Day	Toulmin, George
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Rowlands, J.	Ure, Alexander
O'Malley, William	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Verney, P. W.
O'Shee, James John	Scott, A. H. (Ashton underLyne)	Walters, John Tudor
Parker, James (Halifax)	Seaverns, J. H.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Paul, Herbert	Seddon, J.	Waterlow, D. S.
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Seely, Major J. B.	White, George (Norfolk)
Pollard, Dr.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Sheehy, David	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Radford, G. H.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Reddy, M.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon.John	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Stanger, H. Y.	Winfrey, R.
Rees, J. D.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Renton, Major Leslie	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	George Whiteley and Mr.
Richardson, A.	Sullivan, Donal	J. A. Pease.
Ridsdale, E. A.	Summerbell, T.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Sutherland, J. E.
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick P
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Starkey, John R.
Balcarres, Lord	Forster, Henry William	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Hamilton, Marquess of	Turnour, Viscount
Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks	Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hunt, Rowland	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Carlile, E. Hildred	Lane-Pox, G. R.	Watson Rutherford and
Castlereagh, Viscount	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Mr. Claude Hay.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Liddell, Henry

Clause 6:

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 26, to leave out the word 'prescribed.'"—(Mr. Hides Beach).

Question proposed, "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the Clause."

MR. HALDANE

said there must be some obscurity as to what this meant. The purpose of this clause was to get rid of inaccuracies by prescribing the general officer to whom complaint should be made.

Mr. SEDDON

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

CAPT. CRAIG

thought it would be a great error to alter this proposal to the prescribed officer. Hitherto they had referred the matter to the commanding officer.

Mr. SEDDON

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.

Question put, "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 32.)

AYES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Beale, W. P.
Adkins, W. Ryland	Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)
Agnew, George William	Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Bellairs, Carlyon
Bennett, E. N.	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.	Paul, Herbert
Berridge, T. H. D.	Higham, John Sharp	Philipps, Col Ivor (S'thampton)
Bertram, Julius	Hooper, A. G.	Pollard, Dr.
Billson, Alfred	Hope, W Bateman (Somerset, N.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Black, Arthur W (Bedfordshire)	Horniman, Emslie John	Radford, G. H.
Boland, John	Idris, T. H. W.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Bowerman, C. W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Brace, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Reddy, M.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brigg, John	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Rees, J. D.
Brodie, H. C.	Jowett, P. W.	Renton, Major Leslie
Brooke, Stopford	Joyce, Michael	Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Richardson, A.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Ridsdale, E. A.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Lambert, George	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cairns, Thomas	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid	Robinson, S.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lehmann, R. C.	Rose, Charles Day
Cherry, R. R.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Rowlands, J.
Clough, W.	Levy, Maurice	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd	Lough, Thomas	Seaverns, J. H.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lupton, Arnold	Seddon, J.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Seely, Major J. B.
Cullinan, J.	Macpherson, J. T.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Sheehy, David
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	M'Arthur, William	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Simon, John Allsebrook
Duckworth, James	M'Killop, W.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Duffy, William J.	M'Micking, Major G.	Stanger, H. Y.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Marnham, F. J.	Sullivan, Donal
Everett, R. Lacey	Meagher, Michael	Summerbell, T.
Fenwick, Charles	Micklem, Nathaniel	Sutherland, J. E.
Ferens, T. R.	Montagu, E. S.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Montgomery, H. H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Findlay, Alexander	Mooney, J. J.	Toulmin, George
Fuller, J. M. F.	Morrell, Philip	Ure, Alexander
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Verney, F. W.
Ginnell, L.	Murphy, John	Walters, John Tudor
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Ward, W Dudley (Southampton
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Nicholson,Charles N (Doncast'r	Waterlow, D. S.
Gulland, John W.	Nolan, Joseph	White, George (Norfolk)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Halpin, J.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nuttall, Harry	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)	O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Dowd, John	Winfrey, R
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Grady, J.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	TELLERS FOE THE AYES.—Mr.
Hazleton, Richard	O'Malley, William	George Whiteley and Mr.
Hedges, A. Paget	O'Shee, James John	J. A. Pease.
Henry, Charles S	Parker, James (Halifax)
NOES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig,Captain James (Down, E.)	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Balcarres, Lord	Dalrymple, Viscount	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Forster, Henry William	Starkey, John R.
Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamilton, Marquess of	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hervey,F. W. F. (Bury, S. Edm'ds
Castlereagh, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Liddell, Henry	Hunt and Mr. Ashley.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said this Clause seemed to him to be very involved, and it was legislating in the wrong direction. He hoped they would have some little explanation from the Secretary of State for War as to what the clause was for.

MR. HALDANE

said that this clause was to prevent a man who was reduced to a lower grade from forfeiting his pension.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.

New Clauses:

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved that in Clause 4 of the Army Act relating to courts martial, the word "shameful" should be left out, and the words "without due cause" inserted.

MR. HALDANE

was surprised that this matter had been pressed. It might seem simple, but he would remind the hon. Member that the penalty was death, and this was a very great change to propose, because it would apply the death penalty to anything which might be done stupidly.

Amendment negatived.

COLONEL LEGGE

said he thought the time had arrived when the rules for summary punishment, which sanctioned a soldier for certain offences on active service being kept in irons and attached to a fixed object in such manner that he

must remain in a fixed position, should be amended, and he sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into his earnest consideration with a view to putting an end to this form of punishment. He begged to move.

New Clause (Summary punishment).

MR. HALDANE

said this was a punishment which belonged to a period that had long since passed. It only applied to the case of a soldier on active service, where there was no prison at hand. The rule required reconsideration, and he would undertake to look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HUNT

moved a new clause dealing with the abolition of fines. The country did not pay their soldiers very much, and he objected to these deductions from the soldiers' pay He begged to move.

New clause (Abolition of fines)—(Mr. Hunt)—brought up, and read the first time.

MR. HALDANE

said these deductions were not of the ordinary kind, but were only made in case of conviction by a court martial, where a fine was imposed instead of imprisonment, and that was a more merciful form of sentence.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 33.)

AYES.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Courthope, G. Loyd
Ashley, W. W.	Bignold, Sir Arthur	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Balcarres, Lord	Carlile, E. Hildred	Forster, Henry William
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Castlereagh, Viscount	Hamilton, Marquess of
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Macpherson, J. T.	Turnour, Viscount
Hay, Hon. Claude George	O'Grady, J.
Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS Edm'ds	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Lane-Fox, G. R.	Seddon, J.	Hunt and Lord Dalrymple.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Starkey, John R.
Liddell, Henry	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Malley, William
Adkins, W. Ryland	Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Shee, James John
Agnew, George William	Hayden, John Patrick	Parker, James (Halifax)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Paul, Herbert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Hazleton, Richard	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Hedges, A. Paget	Pollard, Dr.
Beale, W. P.	Henry, Charles S.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E).
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.	Radford, G. H.
Bellairs, Lieutenant Carlyon	Higham, John Sharp	Rainy, A. Holland
Bennett, E. N.	Hooper, A. G.	Raphael, Herbert H.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.	Reddy, M.
Bertram, Julius	Horniman, Emslie John	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Billson, Alfred	Idris, T. H. W.	Rees, J. D.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Illingworth, Percy H.	Renton, Major Leslie
Boland, John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th
Bowerman, C. W.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Richardson, A.
Brace, William	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Ridsdale, E. A.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Jowett, F. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Brigg, John	Joyce, Michael	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Brodie, H. C.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Robinson, S.
Brooke, Stopford	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rose, Charles Day
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Kilbride, Denis	Rowlands, J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lambert, George	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Lehmann, R. C.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Seaverns, J. H.
Cairns, Thomas	Levy, Maurice	Seely, Major J. B.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lewis, John Herbert	Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Cherry, R. R.	Lough, Thomas	Sheehy, David
Clough, W.	Lupton, Arnold	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Corbett C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	MacVeagh, Charles (Donegal, E.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth	M'Arthur, William	Stanger, H. Y.
Cullinan, J.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Strachey, Sir Edward
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	M'Killop, W.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.	M'Micking, Major G.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Devlin, CharlesRamsay (Galway	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Sullivan, Donal
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Summerbell, T.
Duckworth, James	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Sutherland, J. E.
Duffy, William J.	Marnham, F. J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Meagher, Michael	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Micklem, Nathaniel	Toulmin, George
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Montagu, E. S.	Ure, Alexander
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Montgomery, H. H.	Verney, F. W.
Everett, R. Lacey	Mooney, J. J.	Walters, John Tudor
Fenwick, Charles	Morrell, Philip	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Ferens, T. R.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Waterlow, D. S.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Murphy, John	White, George (Norfolk)
Findlay, Alexander	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Nolan, Joseph	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ginnell, L.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Nuttall, Harry	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Gulland, John W.	O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Winfrey, R.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Halpin, J.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Woro'r)	O'Dowd, John	George Whiteley and Mr.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	J. A. Pease.

On the Schedule,

LORD CASTLEREAGH

moved to omit from the schedule the words "maximum price."

THE CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has handed in two Amendments which apparently hang together. The second of these is to insert the words "a reasonable price," but it is not in order because Clause 3 states that the prices must be specified.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said he should divide the House against this schedule unless they had some assurance that a revision of it would take place. The schedule specified 1½d. for a soldier's breakfast and 4d. a night for lodgings, and this last item was less than was charged at an ordinary "doss-house" in London. He thought they were justified, at the beginning of the career of a new Parliament, in asking that what had been held to be good enough in the past should now be amended. Improvements were going on in all directions in the lot of the workers, and he thought the soldier was entitled to share in those benefits.

MR. HALDANE

thought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension AS to what this schedule really meant. The schedule did not mean to specify all that the soldier had. What was stated in the schedule was something with which the soldier had to be furnished when he was billeted, but it was the invariable practice to add something out of his pay.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he should join his hon. friend if he divided against this Bill. If the prices in the schedule were maximum prices, what indeed must be the minimum? In the interests of the common soldier something should be done in this matter, and one of the most sensible things to do would be to make some little provision for giving him better food and not call upon him to spend the greater part of his scanty pay in trying to get the necessaries of life.

MR. ASHLEY

asked if it was fair to expect a soldier to commence a long day's work after a breakfast that cost 1½d.

MR. SEDDON

said that the soldier was not receiving the attention which might be expected from a Liberal Government. He wished to inform the Secretary of State for War that if he wanted the Army recruited from the best men he would have to offer them more liberal treatment than 1½d. for a breakfast. He did not see why men who were called upon to defend their country should supplement their morning meal out of their scanty earnings. If the Secretary of State for War desired the best men from the industrial classes to enter the ranks of the Army he would have to be more liberal to them in regard to their meals.

MAJOR SEELY

said that this was a very old-fashioned schedule, and it had remained unamended because it had been the practice for years to discuss this question at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. The 1½d. allowed for breakfast was part of a schedule which was settled in the year 1763, but if they divided against the schedule they ought to divide against it as a whole. If they desired to discuss this schedule in all its bearings they had better make up their minds to sit for another two or three hours. The whole thing was a farce.

LORD BALCARRES

said that in one case the prices in the schedule were abnormally high, and in another they were abnormally low. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was going to take this matter into rather more serious consideration than his remarks indicated. Although it might be quite true that very few complaints reached the War Office, he had good reason to believe that there were many sources of complaints to which attention ought to be given.

MR. HALDANE

said this was an old schedule, and he agreed that some of the prices were too high and some too low; he was quite prepared to re-consider the question of the prices charged in the schedule. As regarded the hardship upon the soldier, he was assured that no hardship existed, because the soldier was always very welcome on the march, and did not, on the whole, have a bad time. He would see if he could make it appear in some better form next year.

CAPTAIN BARING

said the answer of the Secretary of State for War was not so kind and sympathetic as they would have liked it to be.

MR. BRACE

said the soldiers had to provide something out of their pay, and the reason why complaints had not reached the War Office was because under the terms upon which they enlisted this was one of the arrangements provided for.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

said he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some reluctance; but now that he had agreed to reconsider the whole matter he would withdraw his proposal in the hope that the next time it came before the House what he had complained of would have disappeared.

MR. FENWICK

said that hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament would remember that they asked again and again that the Government should consider this question, and they did not even get a sympathetic reply to their appeals. He was glad that the Secretary of State for War had promised to have this matter carefully looked into, and he hoped he would be able to do something to alleviate the lot of the soldier.

COLONEL HERBERT

said he had commanded a regiment, and during that time no man ever had anything but a good, substantial breakfast, and he never paid for it out of his own pocket. [An HON. MEMBER: How did he pay for it?] He paid for it out of the sums which had accumulated on the co-operative system in the canteen fund. [An HON. MEMBER: That is out of his own pocket.] It was not out of his own pocket, because it had never been in his pocket, and it was profit derived from trading of which the soldier got the benefit, but it was not part of his pay.

LORD TURNOUR

said the Secretary for War had stated that a substantial meal was provided for the soldiers later in the day. But if the right hon. Gentleman thought a substantial meal at one or two o clock made up for an inadequate breakfast taken at six or seven o'clock in the morning, after which the soldier had to undertake hard work and fatigue, he was sorry to say that he could not agree with him.

MR. MORTON

did not think the British soldier should have to depend on charity for his breakfast, it was a scandal and a shame that any such course should have to be adopted. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given his promise to reconsider this question, because he did not want to go into the Lobby with the odds and ends of the late Tory Government. A substantial breakfast could not be had for the sum of three halfpence.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

And, it being after One of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes after Five o'clock a.m.