HC Deb 08 November 1906 vol 164 cc817-51
MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

rose to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the decision of the Government to discharge a number of invalid soldiers, who could not earn their livelihood, from Netley Hospital, without giving the House of Commons an opportunity of considering what provision could be made for them. He did not intend to detain the House long, because he was going to leave the details of the case to be dealt with by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. He proposed to rest his Motion on several outstanding facts which he thought were quite sufficient justification for the Motion. There was nothing more remarkable in political life than the blunders made by very able men when they reached the Front Bench. There were certainly few abler men either in the House or outside than the Secretary for War. He was one of the ablest philosophers and statesmen and therefore he was the more surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, should have stumbled into what he could not help thinking was one of the greatest blunders of the day. What was the case that he had to submit to the House? There was a number of invalids in Netley Hospital—men who had served their King and their country, who had gone through the hardships and privations of war, who had gone through the dangers of the battlefied and the no less deadly dangers of treacherous climates. They had suffered these things for the Empire to which they and we belonged. He was quite aware that that of itself was quite sufficient to stir up the animus of certain Members of the House against these old soldiers —[Cries of, "Oh, oh!"]—he did not mean Members below the gangway, but certain Members on the other Side of the House. He did not see the hon. Members present to whom he was referring. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division was not one of them, for no one had served his country with more gallantry in South Africa during the war than he. Whatever might be the feelings among a few Members on the Liberal side in regard to the men who had served their country in the way he had tried to describe, nothing but feelings of sympathy and goodwill would be held with regard to them by the majority in that House and in the country. He had spoken of what these men had suffered; what was to be their reward? To be cast out sick, penniless, friendless, to the cold comfort of the workhouse or the forlorn hope of casual charity! That was what the answer of the Secretary for War came to when he was pressed as to what was to be the real fate of these men. He was sorry to use language which might appear to be personal to the Secretary of State for War, for there was no man on that side of the House more respected and honoured by the Opposition than the right hon. Gentleman, but he was bound to say that no more inhuman, no more cruel proposal than that was ever submitted to the House of Commons. By whom was the proposal made? It was made by a Party which constantly posed as the friend of want and the friend of suffering. Sympathy was very often awkwardly expressed; it was very often misunderstood; it was never more awkwardly expressed or more misunderstood than in the case with which the House was dealing. It was a strange way of expressing sympathy with suffering and want to throw out these men who had served their country so well. What were the reasons given for the remarkable manner in which the Government proposed to treat these unfortunate men? He thought the first reason was the most cynical ever given to the House of Commons: it was that this proceeding would save £3,000 a year. The Liberal Government had just paid an official salary to the Lord President of the Council of £3,000, and that salary was created by the present Ministry to compensate a friend who did not require compensation. [An HON. MEMBER: Question.] It was very much to the point. They saved £3,000 a year by turning these unfortunate men into the streets, but they were prepared to grant £3,000 to a noble Lord in the House of Lords who did not require it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they suffering from?


said he did not intend to deal with innuendoes that would bring discredit on the Army. He knew how to treat them. Although the £3,000 saving might pay the salary of the Lord President of the Council who did not require it, it would not also pay the £300 salary of his secretary who was proved in the debates on the Estimates to have a sinecure.


Order, order. The hon. Member is allowing himself very great latitude.


said his feelings had been so stirred by the case of these men that it was not unnatural that he should have been led a little astray from the point. What were the reasons given for the Government's decision? One was that it would save a paltry £3,000 a year; the other was that it would make room for more urgent cases for skilled surgical treatment. On the face of it he admitted that there was some reason in that argument if there was real need for the accommodation which these men occupied, and if only by their removal could surgical treatment be administered to urgent cases. That reason however was absolutely disposed of by a Question addressed to the War Secretary by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Livision, than whom nobody knew more about Netley Hospital. That hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked if the Secretary for War was not aware that there were hundreds of vacant beds in the hospital. Therefore the argument used by the Secretary for War that by turning out these unfortunate men he was making room for more urgent and more serious cases, absolutely fell to the ground. The Secretary of State's answer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division was that he did not know but would make inquiry as to whether there were hundreds of beds vacant in Netley Hospital. But he ought to know. And he ought to have ascertained before he determined to turn out these poor friendless men, whose only crime, so far as he knew, was that they had served their King and country. If there were hundreds of vacant beds in Netley Hospital why did not the Secretary of State allot a separate ward for the treatment of these poor men? If that was impossible, why did he not make other provision for them? The right hon. Gentleman had stated in answer to a Question that if the House of Commons would make provision for these poor men he would be only too glad to supply it. His reply to that was that if the House of Commons were given the chance they would supply the necessary funds. The War Secretary had put hon. Members off with vague promises to wait until the Estimates came on again next year. In the meantime he was going to discharge any number of these unfortunate men from the hospital, and then it would be too late for the House of Commons to take the action that many hon. Members were determined to take. Let them not for the sake of a poor, moan, and pettifogging policy inflict this greivous wrong on men who had fought for their country through all the hardships which he had tried to describe. The Secretary for War had been making eloquent appeals to the country on Army reform. He had held up high ideals to the country, and he had spoken of a nation in arms and of a country rallying round the flag. It was surely a strange way of rousing patriotic enthusiasm and of fostering military ardour to treat these invalid soldiers in the harsh, heartless way which so far as his information went they had been treated. He ventured to say that he was justified in moving, as he did, "That this House do now adjourn."

LOUD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said that in rising to second the Motion he desired to say at the outset that though he regarded this as a very important question and worthy of the attention of the House, he did not think that it was in any sense a Party question. He trusted the House would believe him when he said that it was far from his desire to approach the subject in any such spirit as that. It was a matter of some importance from a public point of view, and of very great importance to those soldiers who were directly concerned, and he felt that it was a matter which the Government should be asked, especially from that side of the House, to treat in a sympathetic spirit because of its intrinsic justice. The House would pardon him if he stated briefly what he understood to be the facts of the case. He might be wrong in some details, but if so the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could correct him. Netley Hospital, as many hon. Members were aware, was a very large building indeed. It extended over a considerable area of ground, and had been in existence for half a century. It was built at the time of the Crimean war, to afford accommodation not only for soldiers who were invalided in time of war, but in times of peace. The accommodation was, therefore, very large, and in process of years it so happened that a considerable number of patients who were in fact incurable were allowed to accumulate in the hospital. Whether that was right or wrong was not material to the question before the House. As a matter of fact, towards the end of 1905 there were a considerable number of patients suffering from diseases of an incurable character. Some of them wore seriously ill; others were scarcely ill at all in the ordinary sense, but had some sickness or injury which was incurable. The authorities of the day therefore decided that a certain number of them should be discharged from the hospital, and that was done in November, 1905. But there were left in the hospital some men who were in a bad state of health, suffering from paralysis and other diseases which incapacitated them altogether from taking part in the struggle for life. These men and their friends believed that they were in the hospital for a permanency. Some of them had been in the hospital for seven, eight, nine, and ton years, and no doubt they anticipated that for the rest of their lives, necessarily rather a gloomy fragment of existence, they would not be disturbed, but that they would remain there without any further hardships and misfortunes. But in point of fact, for some reason or other of which he knew nothing at all, in the autumn of this year the Government decided that these men must be discharged. And one of the Questions he had put to the Secretary of State was what amount of notice was given to them before they were discharged. It might have been that it was inadequate, but it was the fact that these men were wholly without resources. They had nowhere to go, and he was told that they had no right to a pension because their services had not been sufficiently long. They were not eligible for Chelsea Hospital. He did not know exactly what the conditions were that required to be fulfilled before a man could be admitted into Chelsea Hospital. The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt inform the House whether there was any fund supplied by the public for men in this position. Unless there was such a fund, apart from private charity which the House should disregard altogether in considering this subject from a public-point of view, the only resource of these men was to accept the workhouse. In some cases the place of their settlement was a long distance off, it might be away over in the west of Ireland. He did not want to say anything disrespectful of the Irish, but he was informed that Irish workhouses were not more comfortable than similar institutions in England, and to take an unhapppy man who, whatever the history of his case might be, had been for years absolutely incapacitated in Netley Hospital and discharge him thence, leaving him no refuge except an Irish workhouse was very hard measure indeed. Those were the facts of the case, and the official answer put into the mouth of the Secretary of State was that there was no longer room for them in Netley without depriving others of the advantages of that institution. He was told, however, that the hospital had accommodation for 800 or 900 persons, and that except in war time it was an exceedingly rare thing for there to be more than 300 patients. Indeed, frequently, the number of patients fell to 100 and sometimes lower. It was quite clear, therefore, that there was no want of room for these men. Then it was said that to keep these men in the hospital would cost £3,000 a year. He could not say that that was a very powerful argument for dismissing them.


It is not worth talking about.


The hon. and enthusiastic Member for Stoke thinks that,£3,000 is not worth talking about.


In this case.


said he was not disposed to differ; but he was astounded at the estimate which, at the rate of 10s. per week should be sufficient to provide for 120 men. Whether the number of men was large or small, this was really a part of the important question—What were the obligations of the country and of the House to men who had become incurably diseased or injured in military service? It was not an easy one to settle. He was told that there was a considerable amount of disease in their case. He was told that a large number of soldiers came into hospital with chest disease, consumption or tuberculosis, but by the rules of the War Office they were kept a comparatively short time and then dismissed uncured. In the early stages of the disease they could be cured, but if neglected the disease became incurable. If it was true that these men suffering from consumption were only allowed to remain a short time, and no provision was made by the Government for open-air treatment in a sanitorium, a serious defect existed in our method of administration. He was also told that a very serious state of things existed in the case of soldiers who were lunatics, and that the accommodation for them was of a very limited character. The result was that a large number were dismissed from the hospital before they were cured, and the only result was that they would have to go into an infirmary, because the House would realise that lunatics in the poorer class of life were not only lunatics but friendless. The consequence was that they had no resources, and no place to go to whatever except the workhouse. This was extremely hard treatment to be awarded to a servant of the State. That was the general case which he wished to submit to the Government and to the House. It was a serious matter from several points of view. Could the House conceive anything worse for the general reputation of the Army and the Empire, because after all, whatever their views were upon Imperial and military questions, they did not desire the Army to have a bad reputation. This was, however, a subject in which the general reputation of the Army in the eyes of the country was involved. They did not desire to see recruiting for the Army made unnecessarily difficult, for one of the inducements held out to recruits was free medical treatment. The State ought to take care that those whom they had employed were properly and humanely treated when they were in sickness, and there was an obligation, not only on the State, but upon every Member of the House, to take care that those who served it were so treated in times of sickness.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. T. L. Corbett.)


said the noble Lord began by pleading with him not to treat this as a Party question, and had said truly that it ought not to be a Party question. He agreed that it should not be a Party question, but that it was one which should be determined more upon principles of humanity and economy than upon Party lines. The hon. Member for North Down who preceded the noble Lord began by paying him a compliment, and expressed his surprise that he should have made a blunder in adopting a new policy which was wholly unjustifiable. His modesty did not admit of his accepting the compliment which the hon. Member had paid him of having from high and mistaken motives adopted a new policy, because all that he had done in this matter was that he had been carrying out a line of policy which was carefully sifted by a Committee appointed by his predecessor in office, adopted by him, and acted on by him. He was prepared to defend it. When he succeeded to office he found that a batch of men had been discharged from Netley because medical skill could do no more for thorn, and they were blocking the way for others who were more necessitous. Two men were left. He was new to office and he kept those men in the hospital. They knew that they were going to be discharged, but he kept them on in the hope of being able to find a benevolent home for them. In September last, those two men were discharged from the hospital. Why was this action taken? An ordinary hospital was managed on the system that it existed for the purpose of curing poor people who could not afford medical assistance. If they were found to be incurable they were discharged, because a hospital was a place which existed for cure and not for the maintenance of those who could not be cured. The effect of retaining those patients who could not be cured was to block out those cases which needed urgent treatment. The same system prevailed in the Admiralty hospitals and it ought to prevail in the War Office hospitals. Unless they took that course difficulty would inevitably arise in making provision for those cases that really called for the efforts of a cure. It was true that there were only between 300 and 400 patients at Netley, and that there were 900 beds. But the point was that, although the space was there, there was no establishment in time of peace to look after the sick. Netley was our great war hospital, and a large amount of space had to be provided to meet the claims of war. But in peace time only such a staff was provided as was needed for the average number of sick. At the present time the number was about 300, but in one week the number might go down to thirty or forty, and in another week the number might rise to 300. The staff, therefore, was calculated on the average number of sick, so that the peace accommodation at Netley was only about 300 or 400 places. The authorities had to exercise the utmost care as to who were taken in and retained. The principle was to take in whoever needed medical treatment and to keep him while such treatment could do him any good; and then they ought to pass him out when the case proved to be incurable, or when the man was healed, in order to make room for those who needed urgent medical treatment. That was the system worked out by the advisory board composed of men like Sir Frederick Treves and other eminent surgeons, and it had been carried on for a considerable time past. It was a system which had been pursued with some laxity when the late Government took the matter up and decided to treat the hospital on the principle he had described. It was asked "Why do you not make provision for the soldier who is poor and incurable?" His answer was to ask another question—"Why should some thing special be done for the soldier, why should he receive what the great bulk of the poorer classes in this country cannot receive; why do for the soldier what was not done for the sailor and the poorer members of the working classes?" Since the adjournment had been moved he had had the opportunity of consulting with the authorities, and they had given him these figures. Taking a group of military hospitals, if the incurables were not discharged, what would happen? These figures were by way of illustration. Last year the number discharged was 3,687, of whom 700 were suffering from heart disease or tuberculosis. Everyone would like to keep those 700, but how could it be justified, seeing that the taxpayers included large numbers of the poorer classes for whom no such provision was made? If the Government were to accept the principle urged upon them tonight it would mean that, in respect of men suffering from heart disease and tuberculosis alone, 700 would be retained every year. Their average expectation of life might be taken at ten years. Those were cases of persons who were discharged not because their lives were in danger—if they were in danger they were treated—but because they were incurable. Therefore if they assumed the number of cases every year discharged was 700, and the mortality was 10 per cent. on a basis of ten years average the cost would amount to £324,000 a year. If other diseases were included, the cost would be not less than £500,000 a year. Saving money was not in question. He was asked to find £500,000 a year and to provide new buildings for the accommodation of those cases; and all this for the benefit, not of the community at large, or even for the Services, for the sailors had not these advantages, but for a privileged class— the incurables in the military hospitals, because the military hospitals could do them no further good. All that the military authorities could do for them was to give that pension to which they were entitled. The system of the military organisation of this country provided pensions for a certain class. If a soldier were totally incapacitated by wounds he got a pension of from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day. If he were sick in consequence of military service, but not totally incapacitated, he received from 6d. to 1s. 6d. a day. But if the sickness were not due to military service, but illness which, so to speak, had come to the soldier in his civilian capacity as it might come to any other member of the community, then the soldier only received a short time pension, like one of the men whose case had been raised by this Motion. Those who could be cured were cured, and those who could not, but who were eligible for Chelsea, received a Chelsea pension or admission to Chelsea Hospital. This was no new arrangement, and to change the system would be to place a heavy addition on the Estimates and the building, both to benefit soldiers in a way that no other class of the community was benefited. It was quite true, as the hon. Member had said, that there were hundreds of vacant beds at Netley, but there were no attendants for them. Netley was now on the peace establishment, and beds without attendants were not beds that were worth much. It was said that these men had suffered for the Empire. They were ill as any civilians might be ill. Neither of the men had seen war service or had beep wounded, and, in his opinion, they were entitled to no more consideration than any other poor member of the community.


What about those whose disease is due to foreign service?


said that such men would be eligible for Chelsea, but the illness of the men in question was not due to foreign service. The late Government very properly discharged all the incurables but two, whom he soft-heartedly had retained. His only reward was to be bombarded in the house with Questions. The provision for wounded men was at Chelsea and not at Netley, which was a hospital for curing the sick. He thought he had answered all the points put to him. He regretted very much that he could not make provision for everybody, but that was a regret that should apply to the community as a whole, and not to any special class. He thought they had done all that they ought to do in this case. He entirely agreed with the policy which had been adopted by the medical authorities, because he felt that if that policy were departed from, it would be the worse for those whom medical aid could cure, and who would thus be debarred from obtaining that aid.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said that as he knew these two men personally, having been in Netley hospital a good many times during the past two years and having thus become acquainted with them, he might perhaps be permitted to say what he knew of the matter. He would say first of all for the relief of the mind of his right hon. friend that in only one particular was he wrong. He was under the impression that one of these men who had been dismissed had gone to the poor-house at Fermoy. That was where he was destined to go when he was dismissed, but fortunately some friends had intervened, and he was now in a nursing home at Southampton. The fact was that all this was the direct result of the decision of the late Secretary of State for War, and if the House was to censure anyone they ought to censure that right hon. Gentleman as much as the present holder of the office. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that if he were in his place, and therefore whatever blame was to be imputed could not be imputed to his right hon. friend for the policy initiated by his predecessor. Having said that, he did not for one moment agree to the doctrine of his right hon. friend that there was no harm in a system which would say that a man who had been for ten years in one of our military hospitals as an incurable invalid should, by the mere decision of a Board, be sent to the poor-house in Fermoy. He submitted to the House in no Party spirit, as the decision was that of the late Secretary of State, that that was wrong, and that no amount of talking about other members of the community having as much right to consideration as retired soldiers would make it right. If it was Tight to keep a man for ten years, a hopeless paralytic, it must be wrong with no change whatever in his condition or in the condition of the finances of the responsible persons to send him to a workhouse. It was as though a man had an employee fell and broke his log, and the leg would not set. It might be alleged that the man fell through his own fault and was partly to blame—he did not admit that in this case, but what was true in the one case might be true in the other, but it was probably not. The employer decided to put that man in one of his lodges and take care of him for ten years. If at the end of that period without any disaster to his finances he were to turn the man out into the street to go into the workhouse no one would be surprised if the inhabitants of the neighbourhood were much tempted to go and break his windows. That was what had happened at Netley Hospital through the order of his right hon. friend's predecessor. It was wrong, and the particular point which his right hon. friend referred to, though hardly mentioning it, made the matter all the more disastrous to those who knew the circumstances of a soldier's life. Had we a right to send men to India at a time of life when they were most liable to suffer owing to the temptations and the dangers of a tropical climate, and then, years later, having taken all the best out of them for the purposes of the State, to throw them back on the labour market, or, as in this case, upon the workhouse? He was glad this Motion had been brought before the House. His right hon. friend had certainly cleared his reputation as a man of extraordinary kindness of heart. He pleaded that before dismissing this matter they should look facts squarely in the face. If they would only make up their minds not to enlist men unless they could treat them properly, there would be no more of these perpetually recurring cases of soldiers, who had served their country faithfully in peace and in war, going to the workhouse. He therefore appealed to the House to weigh carefully the next time it was suggested that the Army might be reduced, and not to meet the argument with the statement that it was unpatriotic.


thought the hon. and gallant Member was rather wide of the question.


said he was endeavouring to show that if the House of Commons was to see that men were properly treated, it was necessary for them to take measures to that end. But he had concluded his remarks, and he only wished to urge that it was better to attend to the necessities of these unfortunate men, even though it might be said in certain cases that they had a share in their own misfortunes, than to have an ever-increasing number of men who were not treated properly.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that when he first came into office i he found only two men in the Netley Hospital, and yet in an answer to his noble friend the Member for East Marylebone the other day he had stated that the saving to the country by removing the incurables was no loss than £3,000 a year. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that these two men cost the country £1,500 a year each? The right hon. Gentleman in speaking of Netley Hospital had hardly brought forward the point that that hospital was primarily a hospital where incurables were sent when they returned from service abroad, and was equipped for that purpose. He objected strongly to the policy of over-riding the discretion of the principal medical officer of Nedey Hospital. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government now intended absolutely to forbid the principal medical officer at Netley Hospital to exercise his former discretionary power of keeping a man in hospital if he thought such a course desirable.


said they always allowed a certain discretion to the medical officer in individual cases, and a certain latitude as to the time, but they did not allow him to retain them in Netley Hospital if they were incurable


asked whether hon. Members really considered that the principal medical officer at Netley; Hospital would have kept those men there during the South African War if he had not thought there was every justification for the course and that it was only justice to keep them there. The right hon. Gentleman might yet reconsider what ought to be done to men who came home from abroad suffering from curable disease. He would add nothing to what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division. He only disagreed with the hon. and gallant Member in his latter remarks, which were out of order. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the appeal from both sides of the House, would be able to evolve some scheme for dealing with this matter, even if a large sum wore required for the purpose.

MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory)

agreed with the noble Lord who seconded the Motion that this was not a Party question, but it was a question which particularly concerned Ireland and the ratepayers of that country. He did not at all accept the comparison the right hon. Gentleman had made between the soldier patient and the civilian patient. Did the right hon. Gentleman assume that the State undertook no obligation to a soldier when it took him from the ordinary avocations of life for the profession of arms, to risk his liberty, health, and life? The right hon. Gentleman had shown clearly what obligations the State undertook in regard to a man or a body of men who were called upon to serve their country. He knew a man who had served his country in the Army who would have become the prospective occupier of a pauper's grave in Ireland but for private charity. He mentioned the other day that Irish workhouses were packed with old soldiers, and he called the attention of the Secretary for War to an old Crimean warrior who was now living in Ireland upon 1s. 6d. per week outdoor relief from the Tullamore Guardians, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was some difficulty in regard to money. There was always that difficulty. He also said that the State had its obligations to all aged people. That might be so, but the State had a triple obligation in regard to old soldiers for the reason he had already stated. In the Colonies they granted old age pensions.


said he was afraid that old age pensions could not be discussed under this Motion.


said the Secretary for War had never tried to meet this difficulty. Why could he not put an Estimate down for this and challenge the Opposition to support him.


said they already had £2,100,000 on the Estimates as pensions for these very cases.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

thought the House would admit he had some right to join the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) in his disavowal of Party motives, because the part he took in regard to a cognate Question in the past could certainly not be said to have been taken from Party motives. He could not, however, exonerate the Secretary for War from participation in any Party treatment of this subject, because, whilst he agreed with much he had said about Netley Hospital, it seemed to him that the amazing argument he had used, that this Government and the country and the House of Commons had no greater responsibility to those who had served their country in difficulty and danger than they had to those who had served themselves only, was an appeal to Party feeling such as he had rarely heard introduced into a subject of this kind. When it was left to an hon. Member from Ireland to establish the responsibility of the Government to the man who had served his country, it seemed to him that that hon. Member had a fuller conception of the responsibilities of Imperial citizenship than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that a hospital should not be turned into a home for incurables. If a hospital was suited to cure disease and deal with surgical cases, it was unsuited to house incurable cases. By "unsuited" he meant that its whole equipment, its nursing and medical staff, were practically wasted on incurables. He could give the House a parallel instance from what happened in South Africa during the war. There, in the unreformed days, the great general hospitals at the base, and many near the front, were crowded with convalescents who needed no medical attendance and nursing, and who occupied beds which were sorely needed for sick and surgical cases. It was only when this point was urged upon the authorities and the suggestion was made from outside, that convalescent camps were established, which were better for the convalescents themselves, and freed the beds for the sick and surgical cases. He mentioned this as a parallel case, because although a convalescent was exactly the opposite to an incurable, yet both bore the same relation to the function of a hospital for the cure of disease and the treatment of surgical cases. Therefore he should be the last to complain of sending incurables away from such a hospital, from the point of view of the hospital itself. But what about the incurables? Where were they going to send them? He had shown that before the authorities could deal with convalescents they had to find places to put them in. How much more necessary was this in the case of incurables? These men had contracted disease whilst serving with the colours. It was not their fault that their disease had become incurable. Where did they draw the line of responsibility? The men whom they treated in the hospital had become sick from the same cause as the others who had become incurable. How could they assume responsibility in the one case and divest themselves of it in the other? Was there either justice or humanity in allowing these men to shift for themselves or hurrying them into the workhouse with paupers when their only fault was that they had worn the King's uniform? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he was quite ready to withdraw that and substitute for it— the very cause of whose incurable disease was that they had worn the King's uniform. Were they going to leave those men to eke out their lives on charity or leave them permanently in the workhouse? Such a policy would have a fatal effect upon the morale of the Army and upon the prospects of recruiting. It was the duty of the Minister to advise the House; and the guidance he had given to the House, if his words had been rightly understood, was that these men who had contracted their diseases in the service of their country were to be left to a pauper's fate; for the country was to do nothing to help them, and the Minister would not face the possible unpopularity with his Party of proposing in the Estimates some substantial relief. With regard to extra beds at Netley Hospital he would venture to make a practical suggestion. Very little medical attendance or nursing was necessary for incurables, and it would be possible so to arrange Netley Hospital that in time of peace the shelter it afforded could be devoted to the comfortable and merciful housing of those incurables, while some system was being worked out for their more permanent charge by the country. If it became widely known that this sort of fate awaited any man who entered the Army and served his country and happened to contract an incurable disease while serving it, the gravest harm would be done to the Army and it would constitute almost an outrage on humanity and patriotism alike.

*MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had twitted the Minister for War by stating that an hon. Member from Ireland had a more just conception of Imperial duty than himself. He entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman even in regard to that, but what he was concerned about was the statement of the hon. Gentleman that, whereas soldiers served their country, other citizens served themselves. He could not imagine a broader line of demarcation between the two conceptions of civic and military duty than that. The boiler-maker, weaver, or follower of any other "common" trade served his country just as much as any private, noncommissioned officer, or officer in the Army. If there was one proposition made by the Secretary for War more worthy of their support than another, it was his contention that, while making all humane and proper provision for our troops, they had no right beyond this to make distinctions, involving a large amount of money, between the man who happened to be employed in the Army and the man who happened to be employed in a weaving shed or elsewhere. They had heard a good deal about listening to clamour. He was glad the Secretary for War had not listened to the clamour of hon. Members opposite that night when a peremptory demand was made upon him to give a pledge on the spot that no alteration should be made at Netley Hospital until the House of Commons had discussed it. Where would the War Office be if a Minister gave way to such a demand? They read in The Times that if the Labour Members made a demand the Ministers gave way at once. Supposing the Labour Members had made this demand. [An HON. MEMBER: They would have given way.] The first Members of the House to protest against concession to clamour would be hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had tried clamour that night, but were, he thought, going to find it a dismal failure. He was glad that the Leader of the Opposition had consulted the dignity of the House in not being present to support a Motion which had no justification. Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City? [An HON. MEMBER: What price Wyndham?] The Minister for War had approached this matter in a most sympathetic spirit. A day or two ago and again to-day he had explained the whole position, and hon. Members opposite were not consulting the dignity of the House when they attempted to get the right hon. Gentleman to give way on the spot in regard to a matter which he had had under his consideration. He maintained that workmen had never refused to be generous to the soldier, and especially to the sick soldier. What amused him was the wonderful concern shown about two soldiers at Netley by the Opposition to-day when he recalled how the hon. Member for Westminster stood surrounded by a number of icebergs uttering his noble plea for hospital accommodation when our soldiers were fighting at the front and were being struck down more by disease than by the bullets of the Boers. Yet a remnant of the Opposition were now endeavouring to make Party capital—[Cries of "No, no."]


The hon. Member, in the extreme venom of his Party spirit —[Cries of "Order" and "Withdraw," and interruption.]


Order, order! I do not think the noble Lord's expression is permissible.


expressed regret for having been carried away beyond the limits of order; but the speech of the hon. Member was of an extremely provocative character considering the way in which the question had been treated on that side of the House.


said that his criticism might be provocative, but he believed it to be true. Was the House to be asked to sanction the plea that a soldier who had perhaps lived a reckless life in India and had given way to the temptations of the cantonments, thereby contracting disease which made him incapable of further work, should, because he wore the King's uniform, for life be saddled upon the State? As a workman who had lived among his own class, he said that it would be a wrong to the community and that the Government had no right to sanction it. If a young engineer went out to India and contracted a disease through falling a victim to temptations, was any fair and good employer to be called upon to make himself responsible for that man for all his life? No, and he repudiated the doctrine that the State was called upon to assume a wide and indiscriminate obligation of this kind.

*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet)

said the debate had shown in a very marked manner what a striking change took place in the aspect and dimensions of a question between the time when it was brought before the House at the question hour, and the time when it became the subject of a Motion for adjournment. In answer to a Question on Tuesday last the Secretary of State for War stated that the retention of men in military hospitals after their discharge from the Army had been brought to the notice of the War Office last year, but that night they had heard from the same authority that the action he took in regard to that matter was action based on the example of his predecessor in office, and was taken in consequence of a decision arrived at by the late Government. It might be that the late Government had concurred in the view that Netley was not to be used for the reception of incurable cases, but there was a wide difference between that position and discharging men from the hospital after they had been admitted, because it was found that their maladies had not been cured. On the same occasion the right hon. Gentleman stated in answer to a Question that the retention of the men would only cause a charge on the Army Votes of about £3,000 a year, but to-night he figured that it would involve a charge of £300,000 a year. On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman said that, apart from the cost, the retention of these cases absorbed the hospital accommodation which was required for other soldiers. That statement had been withdrawn to-night. [Cries of "No".] Well, it had been modified now in a very material degree, because the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that while there were 900 beds in Netley Hospital there were only between 300 and 100 patients. He admitted that the statement was qualified by the further information that although there were vacant beds there was no staff, and no means to provide a staff for them. For what was staff required? It was required for the medical care and treatment of the sick. But what was the class of men to whom this Motion for adjournment referred? The right hon. Gentleman said on Tuesday last that the men were not in condition of grave sickness; they were only incurable! The man who was only incurable had not so much need of medical attendance. He needed exactly that which the right hon. Gentleman said he could not give him—the shelter of a home. Therefore, the question of the staff did not enter into the matter in any important degree. These men, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, might be retained at Netley by an expenditure of £3,000 a year. Surely, that was not an immense sum to ask the Government, the House, or the country to grant for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said, "I am already asking for £2,300,000;" but if such a sum as that was asked for, why not add £3,000 to it? That would settle the question immediately before them. The right hon. Gentleman had only been asked to say that he would suspend the discharge of these men from the Hospital till such time as the House of Commons would give authority to expend the sum of £3,000 necessary for their retention, say, until March next. And this he had refused to do. It was not denied that the men discharged would have to seek a refuge in the workhouse. The House did not realise the extent to which old soldiers were going into the workhouse. They were going there at the rate of 1,500 a year. The right hon. Gentleman recently stated that the number of old soldiers in the workhouse was not known at the War Office. He thought that that admission threw a peculiar light on the methods of the War Office. If the War Office had kept in touch with the old soldiers this Motion would have had more sympathetic treatment at their hands. In his statement to the House on Tuesday last, which differed in many important particulars from his statement to-night, the right hon. Gentleman had said he was doing all in his power to find homes for the soldiers discharged from Netley. It would be well if he would state with some definiteness what steps he was taking in that direction. It would relieve the minds of many who deeply deplored the harsh treatment meted out to the poor men on whose behalf the evening's debate had been raised.


said that his justification for asking the indulgence of the House for a few moments was that when he was Under-Secretary for War he was brought into contact with very similar problems to this, problems which were very difficult to solve. He might say that the actual facts of what a young soldier's life was, was then much present in the public mind, and the Government of that day had to resist immense pressure to commit the State to schemes of pensions which would have involved hundreds of thousands if not millions a year. But, though the Government incurred unpopularity for resisting those claims, they did not resist them all; for they recognised that they must depart from the rigour of the bargain, and that there was an obligation on the State to treat old soldiers with consideration. The speech of the hon. Member for Burnley was calculated to inflame the debate and to prevent the House from giving proper consideration to this case. The hon. Member for Burnley saw no distinction between the soldier in the Army and the soldier of industry. Everybody saw that distinction when we were at war in South Africa. Was it not plain that the man who was paid only 7s. a week, who was under rigid discipline, and who was under a seven years contract which might involve him in spending a large part of his youth abroad under dangerous climatic conditions, and in exposing himself in battle to death and mutilation—was it not plain that such a man was in a peculiar case? Mr. Ruskin in his "Roots of Honour," had put the case that when everything was said against a soldier which could be said, in regard to his drink habits, or impurity of life, yet, when the moment came, he was ready to die for his King and country.


said that he drew a distinction between a soldier on duty in war time and in peace.


said that that distinction was rather a refinement. But the fact was that the soldier entered into a contract which involved all these hardships. Passing that by, however, they had to take the practical view that we needed recruits for our Army. We did not pay them a wage which compensated them for all the accidents which were incidental to their employment, and it was only fair that we should endeavour to make their life as happy as possible while they were in the Army, and show them at least that consideration which we would show to a horse when sick. It was said that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was not there because he thought that this was a frivolous motion; but that was not the case, the right hon. Gentleman having asked him to express his regret that he was not present. Such cases as these were worthy of occupying the attention of the House for two hours, because they threw new light upon the large and difficult problem of how we were to treat the man who suffered while wearing the King's uniform. The Secretary of State for War had said that they had on the Estimates a considerable sum for Chelsea Hospital, but he also said that all these cases could not be relieved at Chelsea.


said they might also be relieved by what was called a short time pension and in other ways.


said they got very hard cases at the War Office, but they were bound by the rules, as it seemed to him, to pay excessive compensation to one man, and they were debarred in the same way from helping a man whom they would wish to help. In his opinion it was more important that the man who was absolutely disabled and who was an old soldier should be relieved than the raw recruit who met with an accident in the riding school within three weeks of enlisting. When an old soldier permanently incapacitated was sent to a workhouse we gave the maximum of advertisement to an event which we did not wish known and did not wish to happen. That man became an object of public spmpathy, but how vain was sympathy bestowed on an old soldier sent to a workhouse. If such cases could be obviated by an expenditure of £300,000 he hoped the Secretary for War would reconsider this decision. Surely we had not said the last word of wisdom and mercy in this matter. There had been a steady advance during the last few years in the treatment of our soldiers; let not that advance be stayed for £300,000. They were all agreed that Netley Hospital should not be a home for incurables, but these men had been there a long time, and something like prescription arose. It was hard in such circumstances to say, "I made a mistake, and now I must correct it," He would not press that point. He made it to meet the charge that the Party in opposition were responsible for this matter. He had said they were responsible for all rules as to pensions relating to men who were incapacitated whilst serving in the Army. They had made advances when in office with regard to men who were subject to exposure in tropical climates. He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to shut the door and say that, while Secretary for War, he would not reconsider this very small category of cases.


said he would like as one who had listened to the whole of this discussion to give expression to the feelings which had been formed in his mind by it. Expressions had been made use of by the mover and seconder of the Motion to which very little attention had been paid by the subsequent speakers, but which he thought ought to be revived. It was suggested that the reason why this Motion was brought forward was that the Government and those behind them had no care for the Empire and particularly for those whose lives had been given in its defence. That was the definite proposition which was made, as Hansard would show.


I absolutely repudiate that there was any such proposition. I never used such words at all or conveyed any such impression.


said that at any rate that was the impression left upon his mind, and that was followed by a speech from the hon. Member for Westminster, who, starting very carefully, finished up with an almost similar declaration, calling attention to the inhumanity and the breach of humane principles which were involved in the action of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. One would have imagined that the present Secretary of State for War was really the individual who had initiated this particular order.


I never said that.


said that might be so, but the inference was that the present administration were the guilty parties. There was no object in the Motion if the present administration were not guilty. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he was ready to take the alternative and to say that this Motion was really a vote of censure on the late administration. [Cries of "No!] Hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Benches would not take that alternative. But surely they condemned someone. At all events they would condemn the principle of the order. [Cries of "No!"] Well then, he could not understand the object of the Motion for the adjournment. it seemed, after all, that what they had been doing was simply, like a gang of schoolboys, having a game of marbles. He really thought that this was a serious business, and he thought that when questions were put to-day and during the speeches that a great wrong was being done to men who had served their country well. He understood that that was the proposition. [Cries of "Yes."] Well, who initiated it? If the statement of the Secretary of State for War was correct, and nobody on those Benches had attempted to deny it the recommendation was made by a Departmental Committee during the last administration and acted upon by the late Secretary of State for War. Therefore, if there was any condemnation hon. Gentlemen themselves would have to take it. That seemed to a plain man the natural inference to be drawn from all the statements that had been made. If the statement of the Secretary for War was incorrect, the whole position was changed, but nobody had denied its truth. It was admitted in the very conciliatory speech of the right hon. Member for Dover. The right hon. Gentleman had not had the opportunity of listening to the Secretary of State for War or he would have known at once that he and his friends were responsible for any breach of humane feeling and humane principles. The Opposition Benches were the roost to which the birds came home.


said the hon. Member was unintentionally misrepresenting the speech he had made. But he thought he had made it in a proper spirit.


said he was only a young Member of the House, but he had watched the debates from a more elevated position for many years and he had always understood that a Motion for the adjournment of the House amounted to a censure on the administration for something they had done or for something they had omitted to do. In this case he understood the Secretary of State was wrong for having carried out the policy of his predecessor. In his opinion it scarcely became the members of the Opposition to press that point. He agreed that the soldiers were not fairly treated. But right hon. and hon. Gentleman would discover that those representing the working men in this House who advocated peace on principle, because they thought war was wrong, would be the first to stand up and defend the rights of the soldier. They agreed that the treatment of the soldiers was not right. They agreed that they ought to be treated much better than they were, if it was necessary, as it appeared to be to nations at large, that soldiers should be employed. But it was the late Government who had failed in their duty to treat them well, and if anyone was to stand at the bar it was the men on the Opposition Benches. This discussion had been useful. It had been useful for a purpose which its initiators had not intended. It had shown the House, whatever might be said of the Party opposite or those who sat upon the Labour Benches, that if any cruelty had been perpetrated, it had been perpetrated by the Gentleman who sat on the Opposition Benches.

*MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to justify the attack he had made on the Motion before the House by defending the Secretary of State for War, and his defence amounted to this, that the right hon. Gentleman was doing that which his predecessor initiated. They had always heard, however, not only from the Press, but from the mouths of Ministers in the House, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been placed there to reverse the policy of the late Government. He, at any rate, could claim that in the last Parliament he was not a supporter of many of the schemes of the War Minister in that administration, and his attitude, therefore, was impartial. The House seemed to have lost sight of the history of Netley Hospital. From a Report made upon the institution in 1858, it appeared that, in the view of its founders, it was one of its main objects to shelter soldiers suffering from incurable illness contracted in the service of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they did anything for the cases in respect of which this Motion was made they would be establishing a system which ten years hence would cost the country over £300,000 a year. It was not right, however, that because of their own weakness or by the stress of the work which the nation asked of the soldiers the State should not bear the cost of providing decent and easier conditions for them during their incurable illness, or that they should foist upon some poor parish from which the soldiers came the whole burden which the State ought to bear. Nor would the argument of the right hon. Gentleman be accepted by the country that the soldier had no more right to consideration than a civilian if he suffered from the terrible diseases which were more likely to come to him than to a civilian, or because of long sojourn in India. The right hon. Member for Dover had shattered the miserable arguments of the hon. Member for Burnley, who had tried to compare the soldier to a man who earned wages with a full chance of getting the best possible personal profit out of his earnings. It was absolute nonsense to compare the two cases. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman thought this country would be at war for the next year or two, and he had ample time to evolve a scheme, which, without interfering with the necessary arrangements for war time, would obviate the necessity of these men being sent to the workhouse or thrown upon private charity as a recompense for having been soldiers of the Crown. He was satisfied that this debate would arouse a great feeling through- out the country, and would shew those who, on whichever side they sat, were sincere in their desire to make the career of a soldier not only happy and comfortable with the colours, but one which assured him care and relief when an invalid, that they represented the wishes of the great mass of the people.

MR. CAUSTON (Southward W.)

said he would not like this debate to leave any hon. Member with the idea that the soldier who served his country was altogether neglected and badly treated. From some of the observations addressed to the House one would think that soldiers who had served their country in foreign parts, and who had been wounded, or who had suffered from bad climates in which they had served were left to suffer in neglect. Nothing of the sort. Every soldier who had so suffered was entitled to a pension. Pensions were also granted to those who were disabled in the service but not through service. There wore 550 life pensioners in Chelsea Hospital, and these men had either war or long service, or were afflicted with old age. But pensioners must be men of first-rate character, and only that day the Board had admitted an old soldier eighty years of age on a first application. Two millions were paid annually in the way of pensions through Chelsea Hospital. Nobody would desire that those who served their country in whatever capacity should be found in the workhouse as a result of their service. The extra cost to the country, however, of continuing the Netley policy would be nearer £500,000 a year than £3,000.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

said that he had acted as one of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and he was glad on every occasion to pay a high tribute to the efficiency and value of the work done by that institution. The intervention of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had done something to bring the debate back to the level it attained in the speech of the noble Lord who seconded this Motion. The hon. Member for Stoke had endeavoured to make it a Party question, while the Opposition had made it clear that that was the thing that they wished to avoid. The case involved in the present discussion was one with which Chelsea Hospital could not deal. There had been case after case of this kind presented, and although the Commissioners had neither power nor funds to deal with the cases officially they were yet able by individual efforts, by canvassing among friends and philanthropic institutions, to do a great deal in the way of amelioration. But there was something wrong with a system which threw adrift men who suffered from an incurable disease or a shattered constitution, which ground them under the heel of a merciless and pitiless economy. Would not the right hon. Gentleman be well advised to devote some part of the savings to be gained from the reductions in the Army Estimates next year to providing a system by which men who were incurable might find some home other than the workhouse? Was it economy not to deal with these cases? Our military system depended upon voluntary enlistment, and there was nothing that deterred men from enlisting so much as bad and harsh treatment of old soldiers, and very often it was the best old soldiers who were treated the worst. Was it likely that the best men would enlist when they had in the cases under discussion living —perhaps it would be more correct to say dying—examples of the manner in which diseased old soldiers were treated? He hoped the debate which had taken place would have some weight, because after all it rested with the House to alter the system. When the question came up for revision, he hoped something would be done to remove this blot from our system.


said that one result of this debate would be to warn the young men of Ireland of the treatment they might expect in their old age, if they were foolish enough to enlist. There was a case in the north of Ireland where some men were prosecuted and sent to prison because they had issued and posted certain placards calling upon the young men of Ireland not to join the British Army. There would be no need to go outside the law in future to give warning. All that would be required would be to get a full and true report of this debate, and to circulate it widely throughout the length and breadth of the land. That would undoubtedly show to all whom it might concern the fate that was likely to overtake many of those who in the heyday of their youth unhesitatingly joined the colours and entered the Army—the fate of finding in the end, when their youth and vitality had passed away, and when age and helplessness came upon them, that they were thrown on one side by the State, and left to end their days in the most miserable way in the pauper wards of the workhouse. He was somewhat surprised at the attacks made by speakers on the Opposition side of the House on the Secretary of State for War. One would imagine from those speeches that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the system which prevailed, and that what was complained of had taken place since he assumed office. Those who remembered the time when the War Office was presided over by Mr. Brodrick, would remember that the Irish Members brought before him case after case of unfortunate aged and suffering soldiers who were forced into the workhouse in the end of their days. The system which prevailed was a bad system. It was nothing to Irishmen what system was adopted except in so far as it affected their young men, but it was a notorious fact to everybody who had studied the conditions abroad that the treatment meted out to the common soldier in the British Army was exceedingly bad, and, he would say, a disgrace to those concerned. As compared with the treatment given to the common soldiers, the men behind the guns, by the American nation and other countries, there was very little consideration given to them in this country, but there was plenty of consideration given to the general officers, the pets of society. The present Minister for War had inherited the system of his predecessors, and those who had ruled at the War Office for the last twenty years knew that the system was bad. The Secretary of State was not the man to be insensible to the sufferings of any man, but the right hon. Gentleman had said it was a case of money—a matter of some £3,000. The House of Commons did not think of a few thousands when it showered tens of thousands of pounds upon Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts. [Cries of "Oh!"]. He was endeavouring to put before the House his point of view moderately and without giving offence. Hon. Members who were going to support this Motion for the adjournment professed to be solicitous about the welfare of the poor aged soldiers who were turned out of Netley, and they attacked the present Administration as if the last Administration was not responsible at all; but what did they do or say when it was a question of voting £100,000 to Lord Roberts, and £50,000 to Lord Kitchener? They did not say a single word. He was not saying that, from the last Administration's point of view, the generals were not deserving of reward, but he contended that they had no right to lavish the money of the taxpayers on generals, and leave in existence the system under which these poor soldiers received the treatment now complained of. He remembered that when these large sums were voted to the generals he raised his voice on behalf of the wives and families of the poor Reservists who were in hunger in the towns and villages of Ireland, and he received a pretty good remonstrance from the hon. Member for North Down and his friends, who were then very numerous, and, therefore, could make much more noise than at the present time. He held in his hand the Report of the Viceregal Committee on Poor Law Reform, and he found at page 57 the statement that in the month of January this year there were admitted into the various workhouses of Ireland no less than 1,040 old soldiers. If they were going to get soldiers to fight their battles, let them not, in God's name, flood the workhouses in Ireland, and put this disgraceful burden upon the already overburdened ratepayers and taxpayers of that unfortunate country. He hoped that this debate would be discussed at every cross-roads in Ireland.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cross, Alexander Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Doughty, Sir George Salter, Arthur Clavell
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)
Balcarres, Lord Fell, Arthur Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J(City Lond. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Starkey, John R.
Baring. Hon. Guy (Winchester) Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry. N.) Hamilton, Marquess of Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) Hay, Hon. Claude George Turnour, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'md Valentia, Viscount
Bridgeman, W. Clive. Hills, J. W. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Bull, Sir William James Houston, Robert Paterson Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Jowett, F. W. Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Lane-Fox, G. R. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Carlile, E. Hildred Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich.) Younger, George
Castlereagh, Viscount Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Cave, George Meysey-Thompson, E. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston. Manor) Randles, Sir John Scurrah T. L. Corbett and Lord
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Remnant, James Farquharson Robert Cecil.
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Burke, E. Haviland- Everett, R. Lacey
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burnyeat, W. J. D. Fenwick, Charles
Ac land, Francis Dyke Byles, William Pollard Ferens, T. R.
Agnew, George William Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Ffrench, Peter
Alden, Percy Carr-Gomm, H. W. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Flavin, Michael Joseph
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Channing, Francis Allston Fuller, John Michael F.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Clarke, C. Goddard Fullerton, Hugh
Astbury, John Meir Clough, William Gill, A. H.
Atherley-Jones, L. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras, W) Glendinning, R. G.
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Cory, Clifford John Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Barnes, G. N. Cremer, William Randal Gulland, John W.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Crosfield, A. H. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Beale, W. P. Crossley, William J. Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B
Beauchamp, E. Dalziel, James Henry Hammond, John
Beaumont, Hn. W. C.B.(Hex'm Davies, David (Montgomery, Co Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Beck, A. Cecil Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Bellairs, Carlyon Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harwood, George
Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Bennett, E. N. Delany, William Haworth, Arthur A.
Berridge, H. T. D. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bertram, Julius Dobson, Thomas W. Hedges, A. Paget
Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford) Donelan, Captain A. Hemmerde, Edward George
Billson, Alfred Duckworth, James Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Brace, William Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Higham, John Sharp
Branch, James Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hobart, Sir Robert
Brigg, John. Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Hogan, Michael
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Holden, E. Hopkinson
Brooke, Stopford Elibank, Master of Hooper, A. G.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen Erskine, David C. Horniman, Emslie John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Esmonde, Sir Thomas Horridge, Thomas Gardner

The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes 259. (Division List No. 390.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hudson, Walter Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Simon, John Allsebrook
Hyde, Clarendon Morrell, Philip Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Illingworth, Percy H. Morse, L. L. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Snowden, P.
Jackson, R. S. Murphy, John Soares, Ernest J.
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Murray, James Spicer, Sir Albert
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Nicholls, George Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward
Joyce, Michael Nussey, Thomas Willans Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kearley, Hudson E. Nuttall, Harry Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Kekewich, Sir George O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Sullivan, Donal
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Summerbell, T.
Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James O'Dowd, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Laidlaw, Robert O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster O'Malley, William Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Lambert, George O'Mara, James Thomasson, Franklin
Lamont, Norman O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset E)
Layland-Barratt, Francis. O'Shee, James John Tomkinson, James
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Parker, James (Halifax) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lehmann, R. C. Partington, Oswald Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich Paul, Herbert Ure, Alexander
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Verney, F. W.
Levy, Maurice Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Vivian, Henry
Lough, Thomas Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lundon, W. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Wallace, Robert
Lupton, Arnold Radford, G. H. Walsh, Stephen
Lyell, Charles Henry Rainy, A. Rolland Walters, John Tudor
Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs) Raphael, Herbert H. Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Ward, W. Dudley-Southampton
Macpherson, J. T. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wardle, George J.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.) Redmond, William (Clare) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
MacVeigh, Chas, (Donegal, E.) Rees, J. D. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
M'Crae, George Renton, Major Leslie Waterlow, D. S.
M'Kean, John Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) Watt, H. Anderson
M'Killop, W. Rickett, J. Compton Whitbread, Howard
M'Micking, Major G. Ridsdale, E. A. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Maddison, Frederick Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whitehead, Rowland
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Marnham, F. J. Robinson, S. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry ) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Massie, J. Rogers, F. E. Newman Williamson, A.
Meagher, Michael Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Meehan, Patrick A. Rowlands, J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Menzies, Walter Runciman, Walter Younger, George
Micklem, Nathaniel Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Molteno, Percy Alport Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Montagu, E. S. Seaverns, J. H. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Montgomery, H. G. Seely, Major J. B. Pease.
Mooney, J. J. Shackleton, David James