TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.

HC Deb 23 April 1907 vol 172 cc1650-96

Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question [9th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Which Amendment was— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words this House, though anxious to increase the capacity for expansion of the Forces of the Crown in time of war, regrets that the Government should make proposals which, while destroying the Militia, discouraging the Yeomanry, and imposing new and uncertain liabilities on the Volunteers, would not, in a period of national peril, provide an adequate force for Home defence or prompt support for the Regular Army in the field.'—(Mr. Wyndham)—instead thereof, resumed.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

*MR. HUNT,

continuing his speech, said that it appeared to him that the Secretary of State for War, a Liberal Minister, had been obliged to go down on his bended knees to the Lords-Lieutenants of counties, Peers and country gentlemen—most dreadful people according to Liberal ideas—and beg them to subscribe handsomely, and to use all their social influence in order to make this Bill work in an economical and satisfactory way. The Liberal Party, it seemed to him, had fallen rather low when they had to face the real situation in office, considering that they began their career with such high hopes and proud aspirations. Many hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches had told them that this country would never have conscription; but some of them did not know what conscription meant. They had mixed up universal military training with conscription. Conscription meant the taking by lot or by force a certain number of men of the country who were then compelled to serve in a long-service aggressive army for a number of years and compelled to fight in any part of the world to which they might be sent. Universal compulsory military training, on the other hand, was the most democratic Army scheme that had ever been invented, and the most just. No man under it was obligod to fight except in defence of his own country. Rich and poor alike served in its ranks. He thought it was a great pity that the people of this country did not understand the difference between the two. It appeared to him as if, to a great extent, this country was ruled by words, and he hoped that in time the people would learn that conscription had really nothing whatever to do with universal military service. In regard to the Yeomanry, as far as the regiment to which he belonged was concerned, this Bill would take away from their pay something like 3s. per day. The men now got 5s. 6d. a day, but that was to be reduced to 1s. 6d., and as their messing now cost them 1s. a day, it meant that they would lose 3s. a day during the training. That was a very serious matter, because the men consisted chiefly of small crofters, gillies, gamekeepers, and when they went home from the Yeomanry training some of them took back with them as much as from £8 to £12, which was a great help to them to get over the winter. On those lines, he thought the Bill would do a great deal of harm to that class of Yeomanry. On the other hand, in other regiments the big farmers came out, meaning to have a good time as well as for patriotic feeling; and the Bill would have a bad effect on them, because they would have to pay out a considerable amount of money instead of, as at present, being able to live well on their pay. By doing away with the Militia, the Bill would make it more-difficult to get recruits for the Regular Army than at present. With the-exception of 75,000 men the rest of the National Army would be rather less fitted to face an invading Army than the Militia and the Volunteers at the present time. He thought that the War Minister had begun his training at the wrong end. If the right hon. Gentleman had begun with six months training the Territorial Army might have been very useful, but it was perfectly ridiculous to imagine that foreign nations were going to allow us six months to train our men in order to suit our convenience after the outbreak of war. He thought the Volunteers and the Militia to a large extent came from different classes, and it was quite a question whether the War Office could induce them to be mixed up together, eight or ten in a tent in peace time. The range accommodation in many of the camps was very bad, and as the time in camp was only ten clear days ho did not see how the men were going to be properly trained. Ten days clear was not more than enough to train a big battalion in musketry alone, and how they wore to be trained in that and other matters in the time he was quite unable to understand. There was another point which he thought would affect the Volunteers very seriously. Formerly the Militia had always stood between the Volunteers and embodiment, but now it seemed there was to be nobody to stand between the Volunteers and that operation, as the Militia did in, 1882, and all those who formerly served in the Volunteers would be liable to be called up at any time when danger threatened for six months of continuous military service. He thought it was extremely doubtful whether the Volunteers or those who were suitable for the new Territorial force would accept the very severe extra responsibility. Another thing which seemed to him very difficult was, how the Field Artillery were to be trained during such a very short time to be of any real use in war. There would also be a difficulty about getting officers now in the Militia to join the new Territorial force, as about a third of them did not live in the county in which they now served. He was told that the majority of the Militia officers absolutely declined to serve in this new force of 75,000 men. It seemed to him that under this scheme they would destroy the Militia and reduce the Volunteers without any certainty of getting men to fill their places. Even supposing that they did get the men and the officers, was it in any way fair or right that 300,000 men, out of many millions, should take upon themselves alone the whole of the self-sacrifice and risk of defending their country in time of national peril? It did not seem to him in the least fair. Many of these men would be artisans, mechanics or clerks, earning perhaps two pounds a week as long as they kept their health. They probably got only about one whole week's holiday during the year, and yet for the sake of serving their country they devoted that holiday to attending their annual training, whilst there was a considerable number of men who had been left a good bit of money by somebody, and who had plenty of time and leisure, but who did not do anything to fit themselves to serve their country in time of need. For himself he could not help thinking that if they could have thrown a net over the 80,000 young men who attended the great football match the other day at the Crystal Palace as spectators only, it would have been a very good thing indeed to have secured them and put them through four months continuous military training and instruction, He could not help thinking that the Secretary of State for War might as well have grasped his nettle and proposed four months continuous military training for every man once in his life between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, and also military drill and shooting in all schools, for all boys over eleven years of age. Surely it was not too much to ask of every young man who had the privilege of being a member of the British Empire that he should undergo this small amount of training. He thought that if the question were fairly placed before the people of this country they would be very glad to agree to it. His own experience was, that although in his constituency, just before Parliament met, they held four meetings in four towns in different parts of the division—one of them in particular whore the political views of the people were opposed to his—they could not get anybody to oppose the principle that it was the duty of every man to learn enough to be able to defend his country and his country's women and children in time of need. If British men were not able and willing to defend their country, and their country's women and children, who could be expected to do it for them? They might at all events perhaps agree that although we were a most peace loving nation it was impossible for us by peaceable means to make other nations the same. It had been our boast for a great number of years that we were a free country, and what he was trying to impress upon the people about him was that if we wanted to remain a free country we must be prepared to fight for our freedom like all the other great European nations. The idea was quite recognised by all sections of society in other countries, including even the Socialists, that it was necessary for every man to go through a certain amount of training, and our greatest soldier, Lord Roberts, who had spent practically the whole of his life in defending the British Empire in wars that had been forced upon us, although he was now at the age of seventy-four, when he certainly could claim to have earned a well-deserved rest, was occupying the last years of his life in going about and telling the people of this country that it was absolutely necessary for their safety that we should have universal military training; and, he told them that unless we did have it we should certainly drift into hopeless disaster. Lord Roberts said— For the sake of all they held dear let our people bring home to then selves, what would be their position if Great Britain lost her power, her wealth and her Colonies. The warning was given with the plain directness of a great soldier, and was surely a warning that we had no excuse for neglecting. The last time that a great fleet set forth to invade our shores, when it came in sight fires were lit on all the great hills of Britain, and in the country all the men, and he believed all the women, were ready, prepared and armed and willing, nay anxious, to defend their native land. He wished it was so now, and hoped it might be so before very long. We had, however, for so long a time been spared the horrors of having a foreign Power on our shores, that we were in great danger of forgetting the awful possibilities of it. It was very difficult indeed for the people of this nation to recognise that at one time during the Boer War this country was practically denuded of trained troops, and that both Lord Lansdowne and Sir E. Goldie had told us that this fact produced the most perilous international situation, and was full of peril to the Empire. Colonel Lonsdale Hale had told them that he had felt it his duty to tell both the civil and military authorities that at one time during the Boer War 50,000 picked troops of any of the great continental nations could have walked from one end of the country to the other. Were these the sort of risks we ought ever to run again, especially considering that the Boer War was really a small one compared with those which in all probability we should have to fight in the future? Let hon. Members just consider for a minute what their feelings would be if a foreign enemy got an entrance into the town in which they lived. He did not exaggerate when he said that if an enemy got into London it would mean, as the history of maritime nations of the past showed, and as Lord Salisbury had said, the end of the history of Britain. The Duke of Wellington left us a very strong warning in a letter to Sir John Burgoyne, in which he stated that from North Foreland to close to Portsmouth, infantry could be landed with very great ease, and if they had been landed, there were at least seven harbours where they could land their artillery and cavalry. Napoleon, Wellington and Moltke, all thought the invasion of this country practicable, and Lord Wolseley had given us even a stronger warning, and had told us what the plucky fishwives of the East of London would do with the War Minister and his colleagues if they caught them in Downing Street if Great Britain was ever caught napping and was invaded by an enemy. The leaders of the people of a great country not so far off by sea from here were telling their people that they must gain the supremacy of the sea, and that they must prepare for war with this country. That country had great ports where it could embark a great number of men at the same time. It had got 4,000,000 men who could be mobilised on a telegram from their Emperor. Three was not the least doubt that but for our "wet ditch" it would be perfectly easy for that country to overrun and conquer us whenever they chose. If we were obliged to keep our ships tied to our shores it would be impossible to protect our food supply, and we should be starved into submission in a very short time. Those who believed in national defence had to contend with people who for generations had been taught to believe that the only thing that really mattered was to learn to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, and who thought war could always be avoided by arbitration and universal disarmament. President Roosevelt had said that that was not possible; that it was not only most necessary to be prepared for war, but that it was disgraceful and cowardly to shirk war when national interests were involved. The hon. Member for Leicester had said that he did not believe in taxing people to preserve their country; and Socialists contended that the minds of the children in the schools must not be poisoned by their being taught to shoot. British Socialists believed that they would be able to prevent a war between Germany and England. The German Socialists on the other hand said quite plainly that Germany must be armed to the teeth and have a strong Navy. No country had been able to preserve its power, position and wealth whose sons had not taken the trouble to learn enough to be able to defend their country. History was full of examples of nations who had neglected this and who had gone down in consequence. The Dutch were a case in point. The Dutch of the Netherlands about the middle of the seventeenth century had a great mercantile marine and a great colonial empire and were in a position very like our own to-day. They depended on the sea for their food. They were the workshop of the world and were the greatest banking centre. They thought peace was their greatest interest, and trusted to alliances and their wealth, which they thought could bin-armies to fight their battles, with the inevitable result that stronger nations conquered them and took their wealth and colonial possessions. Nations had not changed since those days. Nations still acted on the principle of the old lines— The good old rule, the simple plan, That they shall take who have the power And they shall keep who can. As Moltke said— It was only the sword that kept the sword in its scabbard. We gained our Empire and position by the sword, and by the sword we must keep it. We must take the world as it really was, not as we thought it ought to be. When we became so civilised that a little man could hit a big one over the head and the big man would thank him and not attempt to retaliate, we could begin to talk of disarmament. At the present time, at all events, all history taught us that peace was only an interval between great wars, and the longer we enjoyed peace, the nearer we were to the next great war. We should, therefore, remember the great disasters that had overtaken other great nations, and prepare while there was yet time. Commercially-bred and commercially minded amiable people, who could not bear the idea that they, or any of those dear to them, should have to run the risk of being obliged to fight, tried to make us believe that war was always unnecessary, and could always be avoided, and in that way they prevented preparations for war, and so in reality did a great deal to make war much more likely. That sort of people objected to war because it would interfere with their comfort, and diminish their trade. The real remedy if we wanted to keep peace was simple. The children in our elementary and other schools should be taught British history and patriotism, the size and advantages of the British Empire, and that as their gallant ancestors, both men and women, risked, and often lost their lives, and endured great sacrifices to secure the Empire for; them, so it was their bounden duty to be ready to fight for and preserve it for the future generations of the British race. It was also necessary for our safety that every man, rich and poor alike, should go through four months of continuous military training. That was not conscription or anything like it, and it had this great advantage, that it would improve the morale and physique of the nation and also increase our industrial efficiency. He thought an appeal should especially be made to the women of the British race. It was surely the duty of all men to learn enough to be able to defend their country, and was it not also the duty of women to see that the men did not shirk their duty? If we could get the women of Britain to understand the absolute necessity of universal military training for their own and their country's safety, he felt sure they would have Cabinet Ministers and politicians of all sorts tumbling over each other in their anxiety to bring in a Bill for that purpose. It was only a short time ago in a letter to the Morning Post that a woman said that women should take up miniature rifle shooting to encourage the men, and in reply to a question as to what would happen if the men did not take it up, she said that women should learn military drill so that in time of national peril they might be able to defend their homes, their children, their country and their men. When the next great war came, as come it certainly would, unless the nation was trained to arms, our women would see the trains or ships fading slowly out of their sight, carrying all they held most dear among the troops to the front, and many of them would know that for months their sons would be mere targets for the enemy, with no knowledge of how to defend themselves in modern war. So it was in the South African War, and so it was bound to be again unless the nation was roused from its fatal apathy, and our men recognised their responsibilies. Surely we should all try to put an end to our present defenceless state. It was well within the power of women alone to bring it about that there should not be a British mother in these islands who would not be proud that her sons were willing and able to defend their country in time of peril, and not a boy or girl who would not point the finger of scorn at any lad who shirked his first duty to his native land.

*MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said the point to which he wished to address himself was that there was no necessity for this Bill as no great danger confronted us. It was said that the Bill was not likely to lead to conscription, but to his mind it made conscription very easy. The one great danger to the peace of the world was the Press. If the Press of this country could for a few months be muzzled and prevented from making irritating abominable statements from day to day there would be no danger of any attempt being made to invade the country. He was not sure that the time was not approaching when the same law would have to be applied to the writers of inflammatory articles in the Press that was applied to people who incited others to break the peace and commit murder. In March 1905 the late Prime Minister in answer to a question by Colonel Welby, as to whether there was any danger of this country being invaded, said, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, that they were clearly of opinion that invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or to threaten our independence was impossible. He added that the considerations which it seemed to the Committee of Defence ought to govern the number of troops to be maintained, depended on the claims which Colonial and still more Indian needs might make on our military system. The words of the late Prime Minister on the question of invasion were very emphatic. They had also the declaration upon the subject of the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Education last year, when he was severely heckled in regard to the introduction and teaching of rifle shooting in elementary schools. On 29th March of last year he himself asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered this instruction necessary for national defence, and whether there was any new danger confronting the country which rendered necessary increased preparation for war. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he did not regard rifle shooting in elementary schools as necessary to physical training, and he did not consider it necessary for the purposes of national defence; he was not aware of any danger threatening the country. That was another emphatic declaration added to that of the late Prime Minister, who, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, had access to all expert information, and knew well what he was talking about. There was no danger of invasion, and there was no necessity for this Bill. He was trying to take a common sense view of the question, and he was not to be frightened by any spectre of invasion. Five years ago this country was practically denuded of troops during the South African War, and then, if at any time, was the opportunity for an invasion of these shores; yet there was no manifestation of any desire either on the Continent or anywhere throughout the world to take advantage of our defenceless condition. It should also be borne in mind that we were at that time the best hated country in the world. He had at that time received letters from friends in many parts of Europe which showed the state of feeling on the Continent against us; and the last time the late Lord Pauncefote was on a visit to this country, and after he had travelled on the Continent, he almost shed tears in describing to him (Mr. Cremer) the state of opinion against us which he found everywhere on the Continent, and the hatred that prevailed against this country in consequence of the action we were taking in South Africa. At that time our only ally was the Sultan; the French Press was almost unanimously against us, he only knew of one exception, and in that instance the proprietor had to come over to this country to raise funds to continue the one journal which supported the British Government in its action in South Africa. That was the state of feeling abroad, and that was our defenceless condition at home, yet there was no attempt at an invasion of these shores, and such an opportunity was never likely to occur again. Since then Russia had fallen to the position of a third-rate Power, her fleet had been destroyed, and her internal, dissensions rendered it practically impossible that she could take any active steps to attempt an invasion of this country. Yet not many years ago the Russian bogey was trotted out to frighten us into complying with demands for a stronger Navy and a stronger Army. Was there any danger to be apprehended from France? The changed relations between this country and France was the most remarkable, he believed, to be found anywhere in history. Thirty-five years ago, when they began their agitation for international arbitration, they were laughed to scorn, yet they could proudly say now that these two countries. England and France, who for generations had been engaged in fighting each other, had concluded a treaty of arbitration. That treaty was followed by a Convention, partly appointed by our Government and partly by the French Government, with a view to healing the old sores which had been running between the two countries for generations. The Convention met, and succeeded in achieving that object, because there was a desire to do so. An agreement was drafted and submitted to that House about three years ago. The Jingoes in the House, when the agreement was presented for ratification, shrugged their shoulders and said: "Yes; those Frenchmen have got the best of us, and for the future we shall have to play second fiddle," but they did not divide the House. In the French Parliament, the Chauvinists also shrugged their shoulders and said: "Yes; John Bull has got the best of us and we shall have to play second fiddle," but they did not divide the Chamber or Senate. And since the date of that Convention there had not been a cloud on the horizon between this country and France. The French bogey had been laid like the Russian bogey. Never was there a time when our foreign relations were so friendly as they were to-day. And yet this was the time when an attempt was made to Germanise our Army. For these reasons he had decided to give the Bill his determined opposition. The pioneers of arbitration treaties had always contended that if any two nations would take the initiative in concluding such treaties their example would be followed by other nations and that contention had been fully justified. There were already eleven treaties of arbitration to which this country was committed, and which had been concluded since the first treaty was made between France and England. No less than twenty such treaties had also been concluded by civilised Powers, and this country had been parties to eleven of them. That was a great point gained, and he commended it to those who believed that man was a righting animal, and that the old state of things would go on until the end of time. He had visited other countries and he knew something of their opinion upon the subject of invasion, and he did not believe that any country entertained the slightest intention of invading us. Was there any danger of the employment of the Italian Fleet to invade our shores? We were now on excellent terms of friendship with the Government of Italy, who was one of our most faithful allies. Was there an hon. Member in the House of Commons who did not believe that if there was any danger of this country being annihilated one of the first Powers to come to our fescue would be Italy? Italy was grateful to this country for what we, did for her during her hour of trial and for helping to build her up into a great nation. Spain was also one of our allies. Austria had quite enough to do to hold together the various races which composed that heterogeneous Empire. Therefore there was no danger to be apprehended from Italy, Spain, or Austria. As regarded the Scandinavian States the best possible feeling existed towards this country. The United: States were also upon the best possible terms with us, and if anyone was to get up at a meeting in the United States and talk about a war with England or an invasion of this country by the United States he would be laughed to scorn. Therefore there was not the slightest danger to be apprehended from any of the Powers to which he had referred. It was quite true that there was one solitary Power concerning which some misgivings were entertained, but that Power said exactly of this country what we said of them. They had a Press of the same type and character as we had, and if the German Press and some of the English Press were muzzled for a few months the feeling of anger would die out, and very little would be heard of the danger of England attacking Germany or of the Germans attacking us. Did any man in his senses believe that there was any real danger to be entertained because of the feeling of enmity which had been stirred up and fanned by the Press of the two countries? He happened to know something about the opinion of the people of Germany, and from his own experience he was satisfied that no people entertained more friendly feelings and sentiments towards English men than the Germans. If an attack was made upon this country by the Emperor of Germany, or even if he dreamt of such a thing, so friendly were the German people towards us that he believed they would repudiate any such design or intention. That was at any rate his own experience amongst the people of Germany. He would like the promoters of this Bill to tell him what was the danger they apprehended, and where it was likely to come from? Where was the enemy that had manifested the slightest desire to attack this country or invade our shores? He hoped in the reply which the Minister for War would presently deliver he would be good enough to tell them whether he was of the same opinion as the late Prime Minister and one of his own colleagues whose opinion he had already quoted, or whether he could prove that there was any real danger which necessitated the establishment of an Army on the lines laid down in this measure. It had been said that man was a fighting animal. He did not know whether that was the opinion of the Minister for War, but it was a favourite dogma with some people who opposed them when they tried to get arbitration substituted for war. It was possible that there was a good deal of the animal in their nature when they first came into the world, but those who claimed that man was a fighting animal should do their best from birth upwards to subdue the animal, and develop the moral and intellectual sides of their characters. He believed that this Bill would not do that, but develop and increase the fighting instinct, and that was sufficient reason for him to oppose its passage into law. Then there was the proposal for assisting and fostering cadet corps. He thought that the danger of that proposal was fairly well pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester. If however, the Bill reached the Committee Stage he would move to omit those dangerous clauses. He was exceedingly sorry that the Secretary of State for War had thought necessary in this Bill to give aid and encouragement to institutions which up to the present had been purely voluntary in their; character. Some of them for years had protested against the growth of militarism in our elementary schools. In the first place they protested against the introduction of the drill sergeant because they did not believe that it ought to be the object of education to encourage fighting. He well remembered the specious statement made at the time when the drill sergeant was introduced into schools and how military drill was defended on the ground that it set the children up and made them more obedient; but he believed that it was calculated to make children not obedient and independent, but subservient, and what they wished to see developed was manliness and independence, not subserviency. If they desired to see the result of militarism let them go to Germany. He was afraid that the frequent visits of the War Minister to Germany and the military system which prevailed there had influenced him in drafting this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was a gentleman of very great ability, with the best possible intentions, but he was afraid he had gone astray and had allowed himself to be influenced by military rather than higher and nobler motives. There had been a great deal of contention in that House during the last two or three years upon the question of education and the teaching of religion in our elementary schools. Side by side with that there were a number of hon. Members who believed that the drill sergeant ought to have a place in their elementary schools. They believed that the drill sergeant should follow in the footsteps of the schoolmaster. If that was done the schoolmaster would, in giving religious instruction in the morning, teach the children to love their enemies, and in the afternoon they would be taken in hand by the drill sergeant, who would teach them how to shoot them. The paradox of teaching children in the morning to love their enemies and in the afternoon to shoot them was one of those things which he could not understand or reconcile.

MR. HUNT

said they would only shoot when attacked.

*MR. CREMER

said he apprehended a great deal of danger from the development of this righting instinct. He would read to the House an instance of what he meant. In one of the Wiltshire villages, at an annual dinner, in responding to the toast of "The Volunteers," the speaker—a Volunteer—said, "Perpetual target practice was so dull that they sometimes felt they would like for a change to put a bullet through a human being." The danger was that this instinct begun in the schools would be continued and developed in the cadet corps and rifle corps. Up to the present time cadet corps had been purely voluntary, but if these two clauses were retained in the Bill they would receive official sanction. He sincerely hoped that when they came to the discussion of the clauses the Minister for War would consent to their omission. He opposed the Bill because he believed it was an attempt to Germanise the British Army. It would be a sad day for the liberties of this country if militarism in anything like the form in which it was to be found in Germany were introduced. He also opposed the Bill because he believed it to be absolutely unnecessary, there being no danger to be confronted. He further opposed it because he believed it was calculated to develop the fighting instinct among the people of this country. It was an attempt to militarise our institutions, a thing against which he and some of his friends had been protesting for a good many years. He believed it was the duty of the State to cultivate, not the destructive, but the constructive, side of our natures. For these reasons he was exceedingly sorry to find himself in the painful position of having to decide between loyalty to Party and duty to conscience, but on this occasion he could not strain his conscience to the breaking point, and consequently he would be impelled to enter the division lobby in opposition to the Bill.

MR. D. DAVIES (Montgomeryshire)

said he had seen with regret an attempt to knock the bottom out of the Bill and at the same time the determination to reject any solution on a compulsory basis. What then was wanted? They would be extremely glad to know what remedy it was proposed to apply to the present position of the Forces of the country. It appeared to him that the present Bill brought a new principle into operation and made a new departure which no other War Minister had ever attempted in the course of our history. It brought the Volunteer Forces into direct contact with the people as a whole. It must necessarily force the onus of responsibility on the local authorities themselves. One hon. Member had told him that the Volunteers were either overloaded with praise they did not deserve or looked down upon and every obstacle placed in their way. That to a great extent was very true. The other day he was at a Volunteer dinner where one of the persons present alluded to the Volunteers in the most eulogistic terms, yet the following week he prevented several of his employees from joining a Volunteer corps. There were a good many people in the country who adopted a similar attitude. Once they impressed on the local authorities their responsibility the attitude towards the Volunteers would be very different. The position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London seemed to be somewhat incomprehensible. So far as he himself was concerned he spoke from several years experience as a Volunteer. He believed that in adopting the county as a unit they would call forth patriotism and esprit de corps and bring in usefully a certain amount of friendly rivalry among the counties themselves. He thought this scheme would introduce a great deal of the public spirit to which the Foreign Secretary had alluded in his speech when referring to the organisation and general tone of the Volunteers. With regard to cadet corps and rifle clubs, a good many Members on that side of the House had taken serious objection to the proposal to give them support. Again he would like to refer to what fell from the hon. Member for the Woodstock division when he told the House that it was very difficult to get men who came up from a public school or a university to join the Volunteers, because they had done a certain amount of drill in their schools. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had said that this system in the public schools introduced militarism into the country. Both those statements could not be correct. He had served in a cadet corps in a school where service was compulsory. He believed in the system of military exercises in the schools throughout the country. Men spent a great deal of their time at games and there was great indirect benefit from that in the way of moral training. The system of military training in the schools had already been tried with great success in our Colonies and in Japan. He believed that a great deal of the success of Japan in the recent war was due to the military training given in the elementary and secondary schools which had been introduced in that country. He strongly hoped that the Minister for War would not strike out that portion of the Bill but rather strengthen it and make it more efficient.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said he ventured to offer a few words as an old Volunteer and one who had served in more portions than one of the Empire. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had given expression to laudable aspirations for universal peace. They did not share his confidence and belief that the time of peace was at hand. The hon. Member was on dangerous ground when he quoted scripture in support of his contention, because passages could be quoted on the other side. Shakespeare said— The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. He was not entirely in accord with some of his fellow Members on that side of the House. He strongly welcomed what he believed to be the great effort of his right hon. friend to bring the military service of the country into something like harmony. In the last Parliament a number of them did their best to get successive Secretaries for War to raise the position and status of the Volunteers, but they were not very successful. They had asked for the raising of the status of the Volunteers; the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to raise it. They had asked for the better equipment of the Regular Army; the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to give it. He did not know whether his attempt to give the Artillery equipment to the Volunteer service had been sufficiently successful. They had asked that the financial responsibility should be taken away from commanding officers of the Auxiliary Army; that would be secured. They had asked for training with the Regular Army in the manœuvres; that had been granted by the late Secretary of State for War, and was to be continued. They had asked for greater facilities for rifle practice; they were to be granted. They had asked that the Auxiliary Forces should be put under a separate department at the War Office, which should have closer knowledge of their needs; but that separate department was not to be granted. They be- lieved that with the development of the Volunteer service reductions in the Regular Army might be safely made. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent.] He knew that some of his hon. friends did not agree with him on that point; but he hoped they would allow him to state his case. He would never give his support to any scheme which suggested a reduction of the Regular Army if it did not also increase the efficiency of the Voluntary Army; but that would involve what the right hon. Gentleman had not given, increased expenditure on the Volunteer Forces. The reductions in the Regular Army would have given the right hon. Gentleman an extra £1,600,000 for the Volunteer Army, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had erred in not increasing the grants to the Volunteer Army. The right hon. Gentleman wanted an efficient but cheap Army, and a great many of his friends wanted a cheap and a small Army. The two things were incompatible unless the Volunteer Army was developed as it had not yet been developed in this country. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was uniformity. The Militia, as he understood it, were to be incorporated into the Territorial Army, they were to pass through exactly the same training and receive the same pay as the Volunteers, Some hon. Members believed that the Militia were going to receive some training of their own. That, he thought, was a fundamental error. The right hon. Gentleman believed that with our peculiar conditions of society he could suddenly change those natural gradations which had drawn from different classes in this country men to join the Militia, the Volunteers, the Yeomanry, and the Regular Army. He was very much afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had been moved by two considerations; first, the consideration of what conscription had done in other countries; and, secondly, the belief that this was a democratic England, and that a democratic England should have a democratic Army. The right hon. Gentleman proposed two lines. The first one to go into barracks and be trained to serve abroad; and the second line was to serve for a certain period every year for a soldier's pay. But he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be so effective or economical as in the United States There and in our Colonies they had no great public schools as in England. So far as education was concerned all classes met on the same grounds. The sons of the rich man and of the poor man went to the same school and it was possible to get a democratic clement in the education of the youth for the defence of their country. Whatever the future might bring forth, and whatever the apirations of the lion. Member for Leicester and his friends might be, there was a long road to travel before the different classes in England could be brought into one line in relation to the Army. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme wholly depended for its success upon the Special Contingent. He could not send into the field in time of war the number of men he had promised for an expeditionary force unless he had the Special Contingent. But the Special Contingent competed with the Volunteers and the Militia. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could get the same kind of men to go into the Volunteers and into the Militia. There was something in the tradition and the history of the Militia and its drilling in battalions which drew into it, not only the corner hoys, and men out of work, but a considerable section of the community who liked the old constitutional force, and who were prepared, if necessary, to go from the Militia to the Regulars. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he thought that he could get men for the Special Contingent who could only drill in squads, which had no regimental prestige, and had nothing of the attractiveness which surrounded battalion co-operation? He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would find that instead of getting his full complement for the Special Contingent, he would only get those who were out of work and were driven to the last extremity. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was running a great risk. He believed the Secretary of State would have been more successful if he had applied the county association scheme to the Militia, and thus revived the old county feeling which had subsisted for more than a century. Later on he might have applied the county association scheme to the Volunteers. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had said that compulsory service such as existed in Switzerland would be anti-pathetic, to the will of the people of this country; but when the Ballot Act for the Militia was in force it was not necessary to supply it, for it was found that for every Volunteer asked for to serve abroad three were ready to offer themselves. He Sympathised in the strongest fashion with the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman had made to give us a nation in arms, and if he failed no one would regret it more than he.

MR. HALDANE

I am grateful to the hon. Member who has just sat down for the tone of his speech. With all his criticism I am not in agreement, but his desire has been most genuinely and most obviously to bring to bear the best light, he could on the extremely difficult problem with which we have to deal, and to help and not to hinder those who are responsible for its elaboration. I think I may go further, and say his speech has been perhaps typical in an extreme degree of the good temper and tone with which this debate has been conducted. Certainly no Minister has ever had the same cause to thank the House of Commons for the gracious reception of proposals about which, even when his opponents have not agreed, they have spoken with obvious earnestness and sincerity. There is one feature which has characterised the whole debate in a striking fashion. We have had many opinions put forward. One might almost say quot homines, tot sententice. Hardly any Member who has spoken has been in entire agreement with another. Many on this side of the House, while in agreement with the general principle, have demurred to particular details, and not the same details. On the other side there have been many who disagreed with the structure of the plan, but who agreed with many of the details, though not always the same details. What is the result of that? The result is that, notwithstanding what is called the reasoned Amendment which has been put down to the Second Reading, we have had no plan and no proposition from the other side to take the place of the one before the House. This plan holds the field. I say that with the more emphasis because in the Amendment, which is the official Amendment from the Opposition benches, if there is a plan foreshadowed—and I think there is one—it is not a plan which either accords with the opinions which have been expressed in the course of this debate or is in accordance with the traditions of the Party opposite. What is the substance of the Amendment? It is this. Organise not in two lines but in three; leave the Volunteers and the Militia and the Yeomanry on the present principle, improve them simply, and take that existing fashion of organisation as sufficient. But is that plan consistent with what was put before the House—and put before the House on behalf of the then Government—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon? Why, Sir, the plan which was the plan of the Opposition when they sat upon this side of the House was a plan more sweeping in this direction than anything I put forward. It proposed, as regards the Regulars, to reduce not eight battalions, as I have done, in addition to the two of Guards, but fourteen battalions of the Line, including those very battalions with which it has been my duty to deal. It proposed to take the Militia and cut down many of their cadres—to convert them into something quite different from what they are now; it proposed to revolutionise the system of the Regular Army. It was a proposition which, I think, under different circumstances, and given men and money, neither of which, I think, were present in sufficient quantities to give the plan a practical possibility of success, would have had much to be said for it; but it was wholly inconsistent not only with the official Amendment that we have here, but with what was foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin. In that state of things is the Opposition justified in pressing an Amendment to a proposal such as this? You may say, and you have said, that you put your ringer upon various defects, as you consider them, of a serious character in the scheme; and both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin and the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition gave us most fairly and fully reasoned accounts of the defects which they considered to be inherent in the plan. But, after all, there is something more that you have got to consider before you can justly, I think, press an Amendment such as this to a scheme which, say what you will about it, has, as you all agree, a good many things which give it an advantage over the present state of affairs—I am putting it at its lowest—and which has the Army Council and the Defence Committee at its back. After all, the plan which has been put forward rests upon the best thought and the best consideration that we can give it; and is the situation with which you have got to deal one which leaves you at liberty to go on without some attempt at drastic-reform? I ask whether the situation, either as regards the Regular Army or as regards the Auxiliary Forces, is one which renders a continuance of the present state of things tolerable? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought not; they have produced in the last ten years two plans for changing that state of things; we have produced a third, and I think we have all been right. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was absolutely justified in his criticism upon the existing state of things. When, on the introduction of this Bill, and in still more detail upon the Estimates, I put forward the reasons why we felt we were compelled to deal with the condition of the Regular Forces, I pointed out—and the facts which I gave were not controverted, and they could not be controverted—that our first line is full of gaps, that it is deficient in supports, and above all in provision to make up for the wastage of war. Full of gaps how? I merely mention the artillery in passing; it is not the most serious of all the cases. I have always thought that when you were passing from one kind of artillery to another—to a very quick-firing gun—it would be not unnatural that you should find yourself short in ammunition guns. And I only dwelt, earlier in these discussions, upon the gap in the artillery for this reason, that I have been myself attacked about artillery, and I pointed out that the reason why I was moving in the matter about artillery was because I had a very serious situation confronting me. It was this—that no more than forty-two batteries could be mobilised because of the amount of ammunition which these guns used. Well, Sir, I hope still to get sufficient men to mobilise the full complement of batteries—seventy-two, I think the number is—which we could find for the force, calculating its complete organisation. I hope that we shall be able to get a large number of men at any rate for the divisional ammunition guns. When that is done, and as that is done, I hope to replace the Regulars by Militia-trained men for that purpose. But not one man has been taken off the fighting men of the batteries of the Regular artillery up to this time. If we succeed we shall be able to do it, and we shall be able to keep the batteries manned with people who are trained up to that high point which, I agree, is absolutely necessary if your artillery is to be on a high level. I think the House listened with pleasure to the graphic description of my hon. friend the Member for Salford, to the most interesting and vivid account that he gave with all the fire, of one who had been trained up himself with the French artillery, of the battle of Saint Privat. I think we all feel the necessity of that high training if you are to have an ideal state of things in your artillery, and Heaven forbid that I or any other Ministers should cut down that as regards the fighting Army. But it is not that with which I am trying to deal. Our artillery stands as an illustration of the old fashion in which we try to do what no other nation does—toput every form of service, artillery and everything else, upon the highest professional footing. You will never get a sufficiency of men, because you have not a sufficiency of money to do it, if you take everybody for every service at that high level, irrespective of the extent and of what the service is. If you can fill your divisional ammunition columns with men of a lower degree of training, and if you can do something more with your brigade ammunition columns, then you will be able not only to fill up the gap that exists at the present time, but you will hive your artillery not only as efficient, but more efficient than it is at the present time, certainly for not more money than you at present spend. That is in course of consideration, in course of being worked out. It is very difficult. There are many problems in connection with it, and I do not intend, speaking as a responsible Minister, to take action until they are carefully worked out. That is why I have not yet effected the reduction of a single man in the fighting element in the batteries of artillery. The garrison artillery is another question. What I am talking about is the horse and field artillery. When I come to other parts of the Line the defects are more serious. The Army Service Corps, transport, supply, all the various items which are essential to the Army are wanting, and, above all, that element which is necessary to make up the wastage of war by sending drafts. We have not got that. Our first line is in a seriously dèfective condition, and my proposition to the House of Commons is that the first duty of a War Minister is to see to the first line and to get it into a perfect condition. When you come to the working out of that, how do you stand? The Leader the Opposition expressed a real regret that we had not been able to keep the Militia in their present form. I do not admit that we are destroying the Militia. We are destroying an antiquated organisation, but the Militia itself, the really historical Militia, not only are we not destroying them, but we are proposing to return to their original form. Until Mr. Pitt began to drain the Militia for the purposes of the Line, the Militia were a county force, recruited in the counties and of a local character. They ceased to be that. Why? Because they had become a mere adjunct of the Line, and because they were more and more ruthlessly used by the Line. What has been the result? The Militia have been going down and down the hill. They are between 30,000 and 40,000 short of their establishment, they are nearly 1,000 short of officers, and their condition is getting worse than before. Their organisation is antiquated and not up to the level of the time, and nothing but a revolution in their condition can put them back into a position which would justify the expenditure of such a large sum as is expended upon them every year. What we propose with the Militia is this. Put shortly, we say that the Militia contains two elements—the professional element, which has grown up more and more until they have become associated with the Line, and made them what they have been since 1882, completely under the War Office, and what we may call their original, historical, county element which belongs to them, which distinguishes the cadres, and which is there notwithstanding the extent to which they have been used for drafts. At the present time the Line is dependent on the Militia. It takes 12,000 men every year as recruits from the Militia force. It has to rely upon them for drafts—it has got absolutely nothing else to rely on to make up the wastage of war. Why is it necessary, for the purpose of assisting the Line, to deal with the Militia as we propose? There are two reasons. For the first, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been a little responsible. In 1902 the right hon. Gentleman abolished the Militia Reserve, in which a large number of men took an engagement by which they were ready to go abroad as drafts of the Line, and most valuable they were in the South African war. But soon after the war, the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, abolished the Militia Reserve. They had the new short service arrangement, and they thought the three years system would give them not only a large Reserve but plenty of drafts. The drafts part of the scheme failed altogether, and the result was that the Regular Line was left in a condition far worse than it was before, because it had no longer the Militia to look to. It has been suggested that the present situation is the outcome of some temporary quarrel between the Militia and the War Office—that if we had been more tactful and conciliatory on both sides we might have not an arrangement by which the Militia would have been kept intact. That is not so. The situation is the outcome of prolonged discussions between the Militia commanding officers and ourselves. I have in this box a document signed by commanding officers that expresses their considered view after careful reflection. They say, "We are unwilling to furnish drafts for the Line, and we decline to do so." Some of them were willing to furnish drafts in companies; but of all the commanding officers of Militia, only four would consent to that course. The vast majority said that neither in individuals nor in companies would they furnish drafts to the Line, because they would ruin their corps if they did. I do not blame them for that course. Their cadres were getting smaller and smaller, and the situation was worse than it looked because of the habit of the Militia of taking recruits under eighteen years of age, and because, by reason of their bad organisation, the same man was often serving in several cadres. Their real strength was much below their nominal strength. The Militia were right in saying, "We won't give you drafts," and we were right in saying, "We must have drafts," The Militia is not a toy kept up for nothing. We spend £2,000,000 a year on it, and we must get the best value we can for our money. The best value was to make the Line as perfect as possible; and to do that, to take the professional substance of the Militia—the men who are not recruited locally—and assign them a definite duty. In military matters, as in others, there is no greater abuse than giving a man two functions. You cannot make him a Militiaman and a draft at the same time. If you do, you damage the cadre, and you will not have efficient machinery for supplying drafts. Therefore, we hit upon the plan, which has very strong grounds to commend it, of the third battalion, which is to be a training school for drafts and to take the professional substance of the Militia, and to furnish those corps in the form of drafts for the Line, willing to go abroad. The Militia cadre will go back to the county, and it will there take the recruit of a local character. But I do not wish that it should go forth that that course precludes the Militia in the counties from taking the new kind of recruit—that it shuts them out from a higher form of training than the mere eight or fifteen days of the ordinary recruit. It is a question of experiment and money. If experience shows that you can get men who are willing to take one month's recruit training, it will be a question for Parliament to decide whether it is worthwhile to spend the money in giving local recruits, if they come up, the sort of training which will bring them up to a higher level than that attainable by the recruits in the ordinary Territorial Army. But that should not be an exclusively Militia privilege; it should be extended to the entire Territorial Army. You may find that this Army is your strength and your backbone in the future; that, owing to changes in policy and circumstances, your expeditionary force need not be so large; and nothing is more likely to give you security in that conviction than to make the Territorial Force as real as possible. Therefore Parliament may wish to extend the training of the Militia battalions which will be territorial battalions at that time, with such troops as can be got for that purpose in the country; but experience alone can determine the question, and it is looking too far ahead for me to pronounce on it or make any proposition at the present moment. I only wish to point out that there is opened out opportunity for far higher training than would appear under the modest conditions of the Bill. I wish to say another thing. There is a class connected with the Militia with whom I have a great amount of sympathy, and that is, not the county officers, but the almost professional Militia officers who devote a great deal of time to giving training to Militia recruits and battalions. One would wish to make provision for them. If a Militia battalion with that class of officers says ''We do not wish to go into the county, but would like to continue on a more professional footing," it is open to them to enlist individually, not as a cadre, into the third battalions of their territorial regiments. In that way we shall get our drafts; because they will undertake to go abroad, and their officers will go into the Reserve of Officers and get as good employment as at present. In that fashion, combined with the assistance that they would have from the Regular officers, working with them at the depots, there would be a sphere for the Militia officer and for the Militiaman much more real than any open to them at present. It has been said that, after all, the Militia battalions, weakened though they were, did go abroad and occupy foreign stations. I have pointed out that these third battalions on mobilisation might take a large number of the surplus recruits from the Reservists, and from the number of those people who always come in on the wave of enthusiasm at the outbreak of a great war. They will then throw off composite battalions, and we have provided for that possibility by having a number of Regular officers, Regular captains, who will be assigned to each of these battalions, and will be taken, of course, from the Reserve of Officers, who will come in if wanted. In that way we have substituted material from which no doubt we will get a certain number of composite battalions, I cannot say how many, to go abroad for the particular purposes for which the Militia were maintained. You do not want a great many of these battalions. We have got two Regular battalions on the lines of communication, but in addition we have provided twelve extra Militia battalions for this very purpose. In Ireland there are no Volunteers; and we think, therefore, we have a right to make special provision in the case of the Irish Militia. Each of the territorial battalions in Ireland will have its third battalion behind it, but the Irish Militia, which remains a Militia, we hope to consolidate into twelve good battalions to enlist under Part III., so as to be available for service abroad. They will be Regular battalions and not merely training schools for drafts. They will be Regular battalions; I do not care to call them Militia, because they come under the new provisions; they will be available to send abroad with their officers and will be able to undertake the duties which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin referred to. I now come to the Yeomanry. I have, of course, the greatest sympathy for the case which has been made out for the Yeomanry. Why have we been compelled to insist upon the necessity for a change in the force? It has not been done lightly. It has been done after the closest consultation with the General Staff. It has been done because we are convinced that, if there is to be a real military organisation in this country, in must be on two lines, and that the second line must be as nearly as possible of the pattern of the first line. Without that, we are certain that you cannot get either the just proportion of combined arms, or that sort of training, or that sort of spirit which is essential if our Auxiliary Forces are to be a reality. I have been a great deal among them; and I find that what they most desire is to be made efficient and to be taken seriously. Volunteers in every part of the country have said to me— Do not be afraid to put duties on us if you will only make us efficient. I am convinced that the way to make them efficient is to give them an organisation as nearly alike as possible to the organisation of the first Line, and to ascribe to them definite functions. The expeditionary force, with the Fleet which forms the complementary part of that force, are our first Line. The second or Territorial Line is this Territorial or Home Defence Force. I rejoice to think that, as will be seen in the newspapers to-morrow, the Colonial Premiers at the Conference have unanimously decided that this is the best pattern of organisation, and that just as we propose to organise the Territorial Force here for home defence, they propose to keep that pattern in view in the organisation of their home forces, so that we may have not merely 300,000 here, but a chain of Territorial Forces throughout the Empire which may give us some real security. I do not think that makes in the direction of militarism. I cannot agree with my hon. friend the Member for Haggerston whose sincerity I recognise, and whose services in the cause to which he has given his life we all appreciate. I feel that, in enabling the people to defend themselves, we are getting rid of that unrest and want of tranquillity which affords the greatest impulse towards compulsory service. I say that in our plan you have a bulwark against compulsory service. If you retain the present confused state of things it is impossible to predict what vicissitudes of political feeling or confusion in military affairs may bring about in the way of an impulse towards compulsory Service. Therefore, we take our stand upon this Bill as a bulwark against compulsion; and we rejoice to find the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is in accord with our view that the nation is not likely to turn to that remedy. I say, if we are to have any Army at all, let us have an Army fashioned in the interest of peace and tranquillity. But to return to the Yeomany. We have felt compelled to ask the Yeomanry to fit itself into this second Line organisation. That, of course, involves certain changes. It is im- possible to justify the payment of the cavalry at one rate and the artillery and infantry at Army rates and, at the same time, retain to the Yeomanry their present rate of remuneration. But, while recognising that that cannot be done and about that we cannot give way, I quite feel the difficulty of the Yeomanry commanders in their desire to help us in any way they can in the unrest that the imposition of new conditions gives rise to. In the first place, then, every Yeomanry corps may go on enlisting men until this Bill becomes operative in that particular district, which probably will not be for twelve months, and the men enlisted may continue to serve for three years on the present terms; that will give them a transition period of three years. I have considered very much what has been pressed upon me from both sides of the House about the pay of the Territorial Force. I am very reluctant to start upon an extravagant footing, for I hold strongly to the doctrine that frugality is the foundation of efficiency in military matters, and that is the experience of the most efficient Continental forces, and it should be the beginning of wisdom with us. I do not want to cut down expenses too much, but I do not want to be extravagant. But we do feel it necessary to dissent wholly, the Government wholly dissent, from the suggestion put forward by the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in a speech which was characterised by a high capacity for making unpleasant suggestions as to the expense of the Territorial Force. He quoted the military correspondent of The Times, a great authority upon Army matters, and he spoke of the wisdom of the proposition that the force would require £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 to support it. Well, but what the military correspondent of The Times was speaking of was a suggestion of mine that he had before him in a speech I made in October. I have looked up the speech. He was speaking of a description given by myself of what might happen in a time of national peril when we might be driven to the length, in the emergency to which I referred, of keeping 700,000, 800,000, or 900,000 men in the field. The right hon. Gentleman said, truly enough, that to keep that force in the field would cost a great deal of money, and I daresay he was right in his suggestion that it would cost £7,000,000 or £8,000,000; I do not know. But I was speaking of an extremely exceptional and unlikely case, out of which we could not hope to get cheaply. But I propose a war strength of 300,000, and I doubt if, in time of peace, we should get to that; and estimates we put forward are not estimates that allow large cost for equipment, because this force will not grow up all at once, and men have walking dresses of some sort which we do not need to change all at once. We have not gone into that for it will be a gradual process of conversion, and we are dealing with people already equipped. The estimates we put forward were not "faked" estimates, but arrived at after careful calculations by the Financial Secretary and a competent staff of civilian assistants of the cost of keeping this Territorial Force in being. I believe they are calculated on a liberal scale, including salaries and a large allowance for horses. We have been pressed upon the question of allowance for rations and pay. What we propose is to give Army pay, and it has been said that the Army ration is worth about 6d., with a grocery allowance of 3d. That is said not to be enough to enable the Auxiliary Force representative to maintain himself in comfort. I am not sure about that, but, at any rate, we find that the Regular troops, when they come into camp, do have a little more from canteen funds and other sources. That justifies me in saying that in the ease of the territorial men, without any violation of principle, we can make a certain camp allowance in place of the 3d.; and I trust the House will not think me departing from my generally frugal provision if I suggest that we should spend another £150,000 on the Estimate for the Territorial Force. We may have to go even £150,000 beyond that; but of this I am certain, the amount will not be large and will not do any particular damage to our automatic economies.

MR. WALTER LONG

asked that the House should know precisely what were the terms before the Bill passed into Committee.

MR. HALDANE

I will undertake to manage that, either by distributing a supplementary document or in some other way, although I shudder at the prospect of distributing another document. But what we propose instead of the separate grocery allowance is to give a shilling camp allowance per man per day whilst in camp. That applies to the whole Territorial Force volunteering. The intantry as well as the cavalry and artillery, and especially the Volunteers, will not only be better off, but the officers will be substantially better oft than at present. That I am quite sure can be done without extravagance. Rome was not built in a day. Neither will this Territorial Army be built in a day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London put to me in a fashion which I admired for its conciseness, a question about the Army Reserve. I have got here the latest figures about the Army Reserve. At present it is at a total of 115,422. Our normal Reserve is 115,171. Why is it that sometimes the Reserve, according to the normal, and according to the actual strength, varies so? The reason is that the actual strength depends on varying and fluctuating considerations. They happen just now to coincide; but it is only the totals which coincide. For instance, I will take sections A. and B., including all arms. The normal strength is 89,986; the present strength is 98,585, so the actual strength is in excess there of my normal estimate. But what makes a difference is that section B. will, according to the normal, be 25,000, while at present it is only 16,800. The infantry of the line are 62,000 in sections A. and B., as compared with my normal 45,000. The other arms are just the other way. The right hon. Gentleman will see at once how difficult it is to challenge actuarial calculations. They may be wrong, but they represent the very best you can give, and the outcome of the whole matter is that the normal and actual at this moment apparently coincide, with the flunctuations of the character I have referred to. I come now to other points which have been rasied. There was, for instance, the question of Volunteer artillery. On that question I quite agree that you cannot hope to produce in the shape of Volunteer artillery anything like the effectiveness you get with the Regular artillery; but. I do think that it is infinitely better to have trained Volunteer artillery—artillery trained as well as you can train them—than not to have them at all. After all, putting it at its worst, assuming that these guns would not be useful, at the comparatively short ranges at which they would be most required in home operations—so the General Staff assure me—you have a large number of quick-firers in this country after the expeditionary force is taken out, you have the reserve guns and the training batteries. They will be there. You have got a lot of extra guns to which these skilled artisans, the people who make up the artillery, men who understand the technical work better than the trained artillery—these men will very soon knock into shape and be of real assistance, even if you only want them as drafts. I believe they will become competent artillerymen as part of the home defence force much quicker than you think, even though they may not come up to your ideal of perfection. If you want to know what training their men are willing to take up, ask some commanding officers, and they will say that they believe in Volunteer artillery, and that they have been able to bring their corps up to a considerable state of perfection. I think it is not only as part of the second line, but also for the sake of getting this trained element in the country, that it is worth while spending money and trouble in trying to bring up a force of Volunteer artillery such as the Volunteers have been asking for for some time past, and such as will form a real element in the second line. There was a brilliant speech by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester disagreeing with the plan of the Government and condemning it. He said many things deserving of attention, but I was unable to agree with the line he took on the various points he dealt with. He said the Volunteers are being put under half military conditions. The hon. Member I do not think realises that the provisions of this Bill reproduce with slight modifications the provisions of the model rules under which most of the Volunteer corps are. The condition of the Volunteers will certainly be no worse than under the corps rules at the present time. The period of enlistment, the terms of service, and so on represent very much what is the Volun- teer practice at the present time. Then as regards martial law. It seems to be assumed that we are doing something new. But that is not the case. Moreover, it is not proposed to put the Volunteer under martial law in peace, but to bring him more, if he does offend, under the cognizance of the civil tribunal. In that respect, when we come to the Committee, I hope to be able to satisfy them that, so far from going back in this matter, we are going forward. Then there is the question of officers. It is suggested that we are shutting ourselves off from people who might rise from the ranks. We are not. There is a tremendous shortage of officers at the present time; we cannot get them from the ranks or anywhere else. We have been compelled to resort to other avenues for obtaining them. We are looking to the public schools and Universities. We have cadet corps and Volunteer corps in the Universities. That is what we have at the present time. There is plenty of military spirit there, and the more you try to put it down the more it will grow up. We shall do much better to let it take a useful shape. We look, then, upon this as a source from which we may fill up a gap which exists at the present time, but we shall be only too glad to see men rise from the ranks. At present the officer is very badly paid, though we are trying this year to make matters a little better in the case of battalion commanders; but do what you will, officers have to keep up a certain state—their own men would not tolerate them if they did not—and that means expenditure of money. Consequently it is difficult for a man to rise from the ranks to the position of officer. At the same time, we should like to create positions which would not involve that expenditure, so far as we can avoid it. We believe in taking every fit man you can find. Men have risen from the ranks to eminence before now, and it is through no desire to stop that process, but because we are face to face with an absolute shortage of officers, that we have taken the course we have. As I have said before, what we look to for making this second line is the fact that each man who enters it will engage in a great emergency, and it is only for a great emergency that this force is designed to undergo a further training, following on the previous training, to supervene on the outbreak of war. If that is done then we are advised and we believe that you will turn out men who month by month will be better and who will not only be able to defend the shores of their country, but—those of them who are willing—to go abroad to assist the Regular Army. That is to a great extent what we rely upon, and it is on that system, so designed and worked out, that we rest our hope of getting something like order in place of the chaos which exists at present. It is only so, that you will be able ultimately to get down the cost of the Army to a satisfactory figure. It is the wastage arising from want of organisation that is responsible for the heavy expenditure on the Army of which the people complain. In some respects there are things on which we can congratulate ourselves, and we must be thankful for such mercies as we have. I had before me to-day a calculation of the cost this year of the German Regular Army calculated upon our own basis, and it is over £46,000,000. We are fortunate in living in times when we are endeavouring to administer the Army as frugally as possible, and I hope effectually. This Bill comes up for consideration in its next stage in Committee, and the view of the Government is that it would probably be for the convenience of the House that this Bill should be treated as one of the kind that should be taken down stairs. That can only be if there is an understanding about time. We do not want to have to go on, if we can avoid it, in an autumn session. Therefore we feel it would be for the con-

venience of the House to have a time limit. I hope we shall be able to come to an agreement about that. We shall have the greatest desire to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and to secure a sufficient and satisfactory discussion upon the large points of principle involved. Therefore, I propose, after the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. In conclusion, let me say that I am quite aware that no Army scheme can hope to be ideal, or one against which it may not be possible to level criticisms that may be well founded. The whole subject is so intricate, the confusion is so vast, the subject-matter so extensive, that it is impossible to be sure you have reached the best solution. The plan which we propose is, on the whole, a modest plan. It is not ambitious, but it is a plan which we hope is a practical plan. We have done our best to hit upon an organisation which creates the least possible disturbance consistent with maintaining our first object—namely, to put our first Regular Line in a satisfactory state, and to introduce organisation in the Auxiliary Forces. It is in that spirit that we commend the Bill to the House, reciprocating the good-will shown by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and the general determination to try to make the best of this plan, whatever be its merits.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 388; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 139.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset	Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Barlow, Percy (Bedford	Billson, Alfred
Acland, Francis Dyke	Barnard, E. B.	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Barnes, G. N.	Black, Arthur W.
Agnew, George William	Barran, Rowland Hirst	Boland, John
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Boulton, A. C. F.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Beale, W. P.	Bowerman, C. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Beauchamp, E.	Brace, William
Armitage, R.	Beck, A. Cecil	Bramsdon, T. A.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Bell, Richard	Brigg, John
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Bellairs, Carlyon	Brodie, H. C.
Astbury, John Meir	Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Brooke, Stopford
Atherley-Jones, L.	Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets. S. Geo.	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Bennett, E. N.	Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Berridge, T. H. D.	Bryce, J. Annan
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Bertram, Julius	Buckmaster, Stanley O.
Barker, John	Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Furness, Sir Christohper	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles	Ginnell, L.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Byles, William Pollard	Gladstone, Rt.HnHerbertJohn	Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)
Cairns, Thomas	Glover, Thomas	Lehmann, R. C.
Cameron, Robert	Gooch, George Peabody	Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Grant, Corrie	Levy, Maurice
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lewis, John Herbert
Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Lough, Thomas
Chance, Frederick William	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Lundon, W.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Gulland, John W.	Lupton, Arnold
Cheetham, John Frederick	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Lyell, Charles Henry
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)	Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.	Lynch, H. B.
Cleland, J. W.	Halpin, J.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Clough, William	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Maclean, Donald
Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras, W.	Harmsworth, R. L(Caithn'ss-sh	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cooper, G. J.	Hart-Davies, T.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Crae, George
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	M'Kean, John
Cory, Clifford John	Harwood, George	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cowan, W. H.	Haworth, Arthur A.	M'Micking, Major G.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hayden, John Patrick	Maddison, Frederick
Crean, Eugene	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Mallet, Charles E.
Crombie, John William	Hazleton, Richard	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Crooks, William	Hedges, A. Paget	Markham, Arthur Basil
Crosfield, A. H.	Helme, Norval Watson	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Crossley, William J.	Hemmede, Edward George	Marnham, F. J.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.	Massie, J.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Henry, Charles S.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Delany, William	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)	Meagher, Michael
Devlin, Joseph	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Meehan, Patrick A.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Higham, John Sharp	Micklem, Nathaniel
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Molteno, Percy Alport
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Mond, A.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hodge, John	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Dillon, John	Hogan, Michael	Mooney, J. J.
Dobson, Thomas W.	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Holland, Sir William Henry	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Donelan, Captain A.	Holt, Richard Durning	Morrell, Philip
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Hooper, A. G.	Morse, L. L.
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N	Murnaghan, George
Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall	Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Murphy, John
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Hudson, Walter	Murray, James
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Myer, Horatio
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Hyde, Clarendon	Napier, T. B.
Elibank, Master of	Illingworth, Percy H.	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Erskine, David C.	Jackson, R. S.	Nicholls, George
Essex, R. W.	Jardine, Sir J.	Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r
Esslemont, George Birnie	Jenkins, J.	Nolan, Joseph
Evans, Samuel T.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Norman, Sir Henry
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Everett, R. Lacey	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Farrell, James Patrick	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Nuttall, Harry
Fenwick, Charles	Jowett, F. W.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Ferens, T. R.	Joyce, Michael	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Kekewich, Sir George	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Kettle, Thomas Michael	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Findlay, Alexander	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	O'Grady, J.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Kellv, James (Roscommon, N
Flynn, James Christopher	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	O'Malley, William
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Laidlaw, Robert	O'Mara, James
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	O'Shee, James John
Fuller, John Michael F.	Lambert, George	Parker, James (Halifax)
Fullerton, Hugh	Lamont, Norman	Partington, Oswald

Paulton, James Mellor	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Tomkinson, James
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)	Verney, F. W.
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Vivian, Henry
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Sears, J. E.	Walsh, Stephen
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Seaverns, J. H.	Walters, John Tudor
Pollard, Dr.	Seely, Major J. B.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Shackleton, David James	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Waring, Walter
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Warner, Thomas Courtnay T.
Pullar, Sir Robert	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Radford, G. H.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Simon, John Allsebrook	Waterlow, D. S.
Rahpael, Herbert H.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Watt, Henry A.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Weir, James Galloway
Reddy, M.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.	Whitbread, Howard
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Snowden, P.	White, George (Norfolk)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rees J. D.	Spicer, Sir Albert	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rendall, Athelstan	Stanger, H. Y.	Whitehead, Rowland
Renton, Major Leslie	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Wiles, Thomas
Richardson, A.	Steadman, W.C.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Rickett, J. Compton	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Summerbell, T.	Winfrey, R.
Robinson, S.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wodehouse, Lord
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Roe, Sir Thomas	Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury	Young, Samuel
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Rowlands, J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Runciman, Walter	Thomasson, Franklin	Pease.
Russell, T. W.	Thompson. J. W. H. (Somerset, E
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Courthope, G. Loyd	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Keswick, William
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O	Cross, Alexander	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Ashley, W. W.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Balcarres, Lord	Doughty, Sir George	Lockwood, Rt, Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Du Cros, Harvey	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r	Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Gov'n	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Calmont, Colonel James
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Fell, Arthur	Magnus, Sir Philip
Bowles, G. Stewart	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Fletcher, J. S.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Forster, Henry William	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Bull, Sir William James	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Haddock, George R.	Morpeth, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hamilton, Marquess of	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Cave, George	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Helmsley, Viscount	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'm's	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Percy, Earl
Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Houston, Hobert Paterson	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Hunt, Rowland	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Starkey, John R.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Salter, Arthur Clavell	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Younger, George
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Thornton, Percy M.	TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Sir
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Sloan, Thomas Henry	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)	Viscount Valentia.
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Main Question proposed.

And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business:—

Whereupon Mr. SECRETARY HALDANE

The House divided; Ayes, 343; Noes, 31. (Division List, No. 140.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Bryce, J. Annan	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall
Acland, Francis Dyke	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Agnew, George William	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles	Elibank, Master of
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Byles, William Pollard	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Cairns, Thomas	Erskine, David C.
Armitage, R.	Cameron, Robert	Essex, R. W.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Esslemont, George Birnie
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Evans, Samuel T.
Astbury, John Meir	Causton, Rt. Hn RichardKnight	Eve, Harry Trelawney
Atherley-Jones, L.	Chance, Frederick William	Everett, R. Lacey
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Faber, G. H. (Boston)
Bolfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cheetham, John Frederick	Farrell, James Patrick
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Fenwick, Charles
Barker, John	Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)	Ferens, T. R.
Barlow, John Emmot(Somerset	Cleland, J. W.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Findlay, Alexander
Barnard, E. B.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Corbett C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Flynn, James Christopher
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Beauchamp, E.	Cory, Clifford John	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Beck, A. Cecil	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Fuller, John Michael F.
Bell, Richard	Cowan, W. H.	Furness, Sir Christopher
Bellaire, Carlyon	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Gibb, James (Harrow)
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Crean, Eugene	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John.
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Crombie, John William	Gooch, George Peabody
Bennett, E. N.	Crooks, William	Grant, Corrie
Berridge, T. H. D.	Crosfield, A. H.	Greenwwood, G. (Peterborough
Bertram, Julius	Cross, Alexander	Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Bethell, Sir S. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Crossley, William J.	Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward
Billson, Alfred	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Gulland, John W.
Black, ArthurW.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius
Boland, John	Delany, William	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Boulton, A. C. F.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Halpin, J.
Brace, William	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Brigg, John	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh
Brodie, H. C.	Dillon, John	Hart-Davies. T.
Brooke, Stopford	Dobson, Thomas W.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Harwood, George
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael	Russell, T. W.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Meehan, Patrick A.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Hayden, John Patrick	Micklem, Nathaniel	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Molteno, Percy Alport	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Hazleton, Richard	Mond, A.	Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)
Hedges, A, Paget	Money, L. G. Chiozza.	Sears, J. E.
Helme, Norval Watson	Mooney, J. J.	Scaverns, J. H.
Hemmerde, Edward George	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Seely, Major J. B.
Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Henry, Charles S.	Morrell, Phillip	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)	Morse, L. L.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Higham, John Sharp	Murnaghan, George	Simon, John Allsebrook
Hobart, Sir Robert	Murphy, John	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Murray, James	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hogan, Michael	Myer, Horatio	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Holden, E. Hopkinson	Napier, T. B.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Holland, Sir William Henry	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Spicer, Sir Albert
Holt, Richard Durning	Nicholls, George	Stanger, H. Y.
Hooper, A. G.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk
Hope, W. Ba teman (Somerset, N.	Nolan, Joseph	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh).)
Horridge, Thomas Gardner	Norman, Sir Henry	Steadman, W. C.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hyde, Clarendon	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Strachey, Sir Edward
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jackson, R. S.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Jardine, Sir J.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Stuart, James (Sutherland)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Malley, William	Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jones William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Shee, James John	Thomasson, Franklin
Joyce, Michael	Partington, Oswald	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Kekewich, Sir George	Paulton, James Mellor	Tomkinson, James
Kincain-Smith, Captain	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Laidlaw, Robert	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Verney, F. W.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Vivian, Henry
Lambert, George	Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lamont, Norman	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Walters, John Tudor
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Layland-Barrett, Francis	Pollard, Dr.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Leese,Sir Joseph F(Accrington)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Lehmann, R. C.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central	Waring, Walter
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Levy, Maurice	Priestley, W. K. B. (Bradford, E.)	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lewis, John Herbert	Pullar, Sir Robert	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Radford, G. H.	Waterlow, D. S.
Lough, Thomas	Rainy, A. Rolland	Watt, Henry A.
Lundon, W.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Weir, James Galloway
Lupton, Arnold	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Whitbread, Howard
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes	Reddy, M.	White, J. D (Dumbartonshire)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Mackarness, Frederic C.	Redmond, William (Clare)	Whitehead, Rowland
Maclean, Donald	Rees, J. D.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Rendall, Athelstan	Wiles, Thomas
Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Renton, Major Leslie	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Crae, George	Richardson, A.	Wills, Arthur Walters
M'Kean, John	Rickett, J. Compton	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
M'Micking, Major G.	Robertson, Rt. Hn, E. (Dundee)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Maddison, Fredrick	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Winfrey, R.
Mallet, Charles E.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wodehouse, Lord
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Robinson, S.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Markham, Arthur Basil	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Young, Samuel
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Marnham, F. J.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Rose, Charles Day	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Massie, J.	Rowlands, J.	Pease.
Masterman, C. F. G.	Runciman, Walter

NOES.
Alden, Percy	Glover, Thomas	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Hodge, John	Shackleton, David James
Barnes, G. N.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Snowden, P.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hudson, Walter	Summerbell, T.
Bowerman, C. W.	Jenkins, J.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Clough, William	Jowett, F. W.	Walsh, Stephen
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Cooper, G. J.	Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)
Cremer, William Randal	O'Grady, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Parker, James (Halifax)	Arthur Henderson and Mr.
Fullerton, Hugh	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	George Roberts.
Gill, A. H.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and-agreed to.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly.

Bill read, a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Secretary Haldane.)

Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.