§ Considered in Committee
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 5:—
§ *Mr. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)moved an Amendment providing for the enlistment of certain units in the Territorial Force who should be liable for service outside the United Kingdom, with the idea that the new Territorial Force should be given an opportunity to afford help in times of need to the Regular forces when the First-class Reserve had been called out. He proposed by the Amendment to enable the Army Council, working hand-in-hand with the county associations, to earmark certain units of the Territorial Force, which should be composed exclusively of men who had undertaken the liability to serve abroad at times of grave national emergency. There was nothing in the Amendment which should prevent men from going over to the foreign service from the Home service units in time of war or peace. That would be a great help to the Regular Forces when war broke out. It had three distinct advantages over the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. First, it enabled the nation through the Army Council to know exactly what number of men the country would be able to rely on in time of need. Secondly, it obviated the objectionable practice which obtained in the Militia of asking men to volunteer for the front in circumstances where they could not refuse without the risk of being called cowards. Thirdly, the territorial recruit would know exactly what his engagement was. Under the Bill, he would be engaged for Home service, and when a war broke out he would be asked to volunteer for foreign service. It was not necessary to press upon the Committee the necessity of preparation during peace for what might happen in time of war. He protested against the opinion which prevailed both inside and outside the House that they could organise within a short time forces which could repel an 345 invasion or raid. The hon. Member for stoke on the 11th April last said—
He did not think there would be any difficulty in getting men for the Territorial Army. If an official paragraph appeared in the evening papers announcing that a hostile force had landed on our shores a million bayonets would be gleaming in the morning sun, and if the Secretary for War could not provide the bayonets, he would soon find himself swinging from the nearest lamp post.He hardly thought that the sacrifice of the Secretary of State at the nearest lamp post, would propitiate the gods so that this million of men, without discipline, without organisation, without officers, would be able to resist a well-organised and well-drilled foreign force. Therefore, he protested most strongly against the idea which prevailed that an organised force could be improvised at any time. The whole history of war was against that idea. There was not a single instance in which raw levies had successfully stood against veteran troops. It might be said that the French troops, at the end of the 18th century, wore marvellously effective against the disciplined and veteran troops of Austria; but there was in their favour the special circumstances of their enthusiasm for Republican principles. He did not think that it would be denied that in all probability the function of the land force, whether Regular or Territorial, in the future as in the past, would be that of an oversea service. This country had not boon invaded for hundreds of years, and he hoped it would so continue, which would be as long as the Navy remained what it was. Therefore the force to supplement our Regular force would be a supplementary oversea Force, and, above all things, it should be a voluntary one. He could not imagine in any circumstances this country allowing conscription for oversea service. Conscription on the Continent was for home defence, though it might be that the bust way to defend the homeland was to carry the war on to the enemy's soil. The best defence was sometimes the offensive. There were two instances in recent years in which conscript soldiers had been sent abroad, and each was a lamentable failure. Ho referred to the French in Madagascar, where the conscript Army had no organised military opposition to meet, where they lost thousands of men, and the cost to France amounted to millions of pounds. The other instance 346 was that of Italy in Abyssinia, where they met a martial race, and the disasters which overtook a friendly nation in the Abyssinian campaign were deeply regretted. Germany had profited by those two lessons, for she did not send conscripts to West Africa, but called for Volunteers from among her Army, and those men, on the whole, had done extremely well, and, in spite of great difficulties, had carried the campaign to a successful conclusion. Therefore, as we should never consent to conscription for oversea service, ho hoped the Committee would consent to give favourable consideration to this proposal, as it would undoubtedly enable volunteer oversea units to be organised to supplement the Regular Forces. It could not be said that the Regular forces were too large. Were they too large for the war in South Africa? No. They all knew at what great expenditure units had to be hastily organised, and not always on a satisfactory basis. The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the Regular Army by 400 officers and 40,000 men; there was all the more reason, therefore, for strengthening the Territorial Army for oversea service. Then organisation was necessary for sending the Territorial Force abroad in its units, and also for taking the men of the Home Service who volunteered to go out in the battalions earmarked for foreign service. He imagined that the Home Service units would take the place of the Regular troops who were sent to the front in our naval stations, our garrison towns, and wherever there were barracks. The foreign service units would go, he imagined, to our stations abroad, such as Gibraltar, or they would go to such places as Aldershot and Curragh, where they would receive a thorough drilling and grounding, and be forwarded to the front as soon as they were fit. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that it was not necessary to have such units to go oversea, for this reason: He had abolished the Militia; that force had been done away with never to return. What was he going to do in the case of such a war as that in South Africa? The Militia were most necessary in that war to look after the lines of communication. What units had the right hon. Gentleman got to take the place of the Militia if he did not adopt such a plan s was suggested by the Amendment? The 347 right hon. Gentleman could not say: "We have got these third battalions." Those battalions would have enough to do to drill the recruits for the Regular Army, and they could not be in two places at once. The right hon. Gentleman had said in an airy manner that the third battalions would throw off other battalions; but it would not be quite so easy for them to do that as for the Secretary for War to make a speech. They would be fully occupied in training recruits for the Regular Army. If they turned back to the debates of 1904 they would see that on both sides of the House it was generally put forward that it was desirable that Volunteers should in future take a more active part when war was going on, and supplement the Regular Army in the field. On the 3rd April, 1905, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—What we shall have to do if we are ever engaged in a great war is to rely on our Navy, and our Regular Army, as prepared in time of peace, to give us security at the outset, and then, to give ourselves staying power, to manufacture soldiers as the war goes on. I believe that is what Japan has been doing with conspicuous success. How are we to get these large numbers in time of war, and as quickly as possible? We can only get them out of the Volunteers. The Volunteers, I think, must be made to feel that their system is a real system of national training, by means of which, if this country is ever attacked in a great war, either at home or abroad, the nation will be able to use all its resources and united energies for the defence of any part of the Empire.He cordially agreed with the sentiments there expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, who put clearly the attitude which they ought to take up with regard to this matter. The Bill expressly enlisted men in the Territorial Force for service at home, and clearly, on the terms of the enlistment, the force enlisted for service at home could not go to support the Regular Force abroad in time of war, as they would wish them to do. The proposal had often been made to earmark the Yeomanry and Militia for foreign service. In July of last year the Secretary for War stated that there were proposals to make the Yeomanry liable to serve abroad in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon included in his proposals, in 1904, that the Militia should be made liable for foreign service; and last year the present Secre- 348 tary for War said that such a proposal would be introduced. He had made good the ground that there was no difference of opinion, broadly speaking, that the Yeomanry and Militia should be made liable for foreign service in their units. Then as to the Volunteers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had told them last Wednesday how the Volunteers were raised in 1859. They were raised entirely for homo defence and with the idea of resisting invasion. They bad no idea of going abroad. But as time went on, they became more disciplined and efficient, and, as was shown in the South African War, they did excellent service, and contributed largely to the successful conclusion of that campaign. It was now obsolete to say that the Volunteers were entirely intended to resist invasion. They saw that in the South African War. There wore certain Volunteers, the younger and unmarried men, with no ties, who were anxious to serve their country in time of need. Lot them for a moment consider the number of Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers, who could be drawn upon for the foreign-service units. Last year there were 245,000 Volunteers on the rolls. A very large proportion of that total would not and could not be available for the foreign-service units. There were 69,000 of them under twenty years of age, who could not therefore be sent abroad, and at least 6,000 would have to be counted as being over forty-five years of age. Consequently, 75,000 of the full totals wore ruled out on account of ago. Then they had to take into consideration the number who would be medically unfit. In the year 1904, when 180,000 Volunteers were examined, no less than 29,000 were found to be medically unfit for active service, and it was estimated that if the whole force had been examined 40,000 would have been found unfit. Many of these would be ruled out by age also, but there must be 25,000 unfit on medical grounds alone, which made altogether about 100,000 who could not be relied upon to form any part of the foreign-service units. A great number of Volunteers were employed in dockyards, shipyards, upon railways, and in the Government service, and, consequently, they could not be spared to go abroad There was also a largo number who would not want to 349 go abroad. Therefore, they would have to add another 25,000, which would make 125,000 who could not be relied upon for active service. Of the remaining 120,000 those married and those who could not leave their business must be deducted, say 60,000, which left about 60,000 to join the foreign-service units. With regard to the Yeomanry, they numbered 26,000 effectives who were very efficient, and possessed good physique, and out of those they would probably get 20,000 for foreign service. That would bring the total up to 80,000. There wore 93,000 Militia; 20,000 of that total were under twenty years of age, and another 23,000 must be set down as medically unfit. That would give them 50,000 Militia, and if they added that number to the 80,000 ho had already mentioned they would get 130,000 men available for the foreign-service units, or rather more than one-third of the Territorial Army. They enlisted a man in the Militia for home service, and when war broke out they invited him to go to the front under circumstances under which no man could refuse. That man might be a married man or have a business to look after, and when he enlisted, if ho had desired to go to the front, he would have joined the Regular Army. In that way a large number of men were forced to go abroad on active service who had not intended to go when they enlisted. Under the plan ho was suggesting the liability for foreign service would be strictly laid down. The man who joined for active service would know exactly what ho had enlisted for, and the man who joined the Territorial Army would know that he was not expected to go outside the United Kingdom, although he would be permitted to volunteer for foreign service. With regard to the question of six months embodiment if war broke out, he would like to ask the Secretary of State for War for what purpose this embodiment was to take place in time of war. Surely it could not be to resist invasion, because he could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman would have loft his serious training of the men until war broke out if there was any danger of invasion. He was strengthened in that opinion by some words which fell from the Leader of the Opposition a short time ago. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking as Prime Minister and Chair- 350 man of the Committee of Imperial Defence, said that a serious invasion of these islands was not an eventuality which they needed seriously to consider.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said that that interpretation of his speech had been made upon several occasions, and it was somewhat misleading. What he maintained in the speech to which his hon. friend had referred was that with the defensive force they then had at home added to the Fleet they need not fear serious invasion; but the Home Defence Forces were an absolutely indispensable element of national security. Ho did not wish to be misinterpreted, but if the hon. Member would look more carefully at the quotation he would see that his interpretation was not a correct one.
§ *MR. ASHLEYsaid he would be very sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, the Secretary of State for War must believe that there was no danger of a serious invasion, or he would not have put off the training of the Territorial Army until war broke out, but would have trained the men in time of peace. If the Navy was defeated it did not matter much what troops we had here, because they would be starved out. Was it for the purpose of training troops for oversea service that the right hon. Gentleman had started the idea of the six months' embodiment? If so, why did he stipulate that these men were only to be enlisted for home service; it would be much fairer to tell the recruit that ho might be asked to volunteer for service outside the United Kingdom. It might be said that they would not be able to get sufficient men to accept the obligation, and that the men would object because they could not afford to lose their situations. Surely if war broke out the men would run the same risk by being mobilised for six months. He could not see that it made any difference to a man's losing his job whether he was training at home or fighting at the front. Consequently his proposal did not place the men in any worse position in regard to getting employment after his service was over than ho would be under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the Committee ought seriously to consider the over sea volunteer force which was dimly outlined in the Bill. 351 There was a great danger that the framework of the Bill might eventually be used for the purpose of conscription, because that could be accomplished simply by applying a Bill of one clause. They were this scheme dividing the men up into two classes—the men who were so circumstanced that they could go abroad to fight, the others who could only serve at home. There must always be two classes of men in the Volunteers, namely, the young men who were full of spirit, who wished to see life, and had no ties and encumbrances, and the men who from age or ties of business or marriage could only undertake more limited service. Why should they prevent the nation having the services of those young and active men? He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 19, after the word 'consisting,' to insert the words' of such units as hereinafter provided, of which units a number to be specified by the Army Council shall be corn-posed of men liable for service in places outside the United Kingdom when the First Class of the Army Reserve is called out, and.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)said that on this Amendment almost any question could theoretically be raised. The Committee could hardly desire to go over again the ground which had been travelled on the Second Reading debate. He thought the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was disposed to pay insufficient attention to the essence of the proposition this scheme made. The expeditionary force, which, so far as the infantry were concerned, consisted of six divisions of throe brigades each—that was to say, of seventy-two battalions in all, sixty-six of the Line and six of the Guards—would, assuming these proposals were carried out, be a much larger force than any force of the kind we had ever before had available. That was to say, it would be capable of being mobilised and sent abroad on a scale and with a facility that had not existed before. Of course, for the purpose of an argument, he was assuming that the scheme was successfully carried out. If that was so, the bulk of the substratum 352 on which the hon. Member had rested his argument disappeared. He agreed with the hon. Member that it was much more likely that we should want men to fight abroad than at home. The Government hoped and believed that it was a remote contingency that they would all be sent away at once, but there would be available a greater number of units than had ever been available before. The sixty-six battalions of Line infantry did not exhaust what they had at their disposal. There were six more available for lines of communication and for extra units. Then there was what they would have out of the Irish Militia battalions, and what they could get out of the third battalions. He would not go into that. If the proposals of the Government were carried into effect, there would be a force for service over-sea so large that it was not really necessary or desirable to contemplate going further. It was a force of a size which had not even been proposed up to the present time, much loss formed.
§ MR. ASHLEYWhy. then, was Clause 12 put in if it is not proposed to send any of these Territorials abroad?
§ *Mr. HALDANEsaid that Clause 12 was put in to define the utmost limit to which they could go in dealing with a force which was essentially for home defence. He thought the remark of the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly consistent in this matter. The light hon. Gentleman suggested that they might have raids, although not on a large scale. Those raids required that they should have a home force, and that it should be sufficient to give the necessary security. They must not deduct from it under ordinary circumstances, to a large extent, and consequently they had put under Clause 12 all that they could. If they had taken any other course they would really have been setting up a third line instead of adhering to two, which was the very basis of the Government plan of reorganisation. The hon. Member had said it would be a risky thing to leave matters until the outbreak of war before beginning seriously to consider the training of the second line force. The purpose of the Government was to give a much more complete organisation and a much better chance of training to this home defence force than the present home defence force possessed. 353 The six months training, it was quite true, was of the very essence of the proposal for raising the standard of efficiency of those units. While that was so nobody contemplated that it was in the least probable that the whole of the expeditionary force would have to leave these shores at this same time. In the ordinary course of things, they would go out gradually, and meanwhile the units which remained would be available for garrison defence and coast defence. There was no magic about the period of six months. It was named in order to get the units into something like a satisfactory condition. That was the best they could do. They could never get out of a Volunteer force raised on this basis as good a force as if the men were entirely Regulars, or were put through two years training by some other method. What they believed was that they would get something better than they had at the present time, and a force which would be adequate for home defence That was all they wanted. In the view of the Government the Amendment went far beyond the limits of their proposition, and laid down something which was quite inconsistent with it. For that reason he was unable to accept the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)said he believed it would be much better to have no limit to the expansion of our forces who would serve abroad The Secretary for War believed that men would come forward patriotically in case of necessity and offer their services. That was not a very satisfactory basis on which to make up the forces of the country. The Government ought not to be in the position of saying to a member of the Territorial Force, "Are you willing to leave this country and serve abroad, although when you joined the Territorial Force you were told that probably you would not be asked to servo abroad." If the soldier were a member of a unit and a great majority of that unit desired to serve abroad ho would perhaps against his own inclination be forced to go abroad with his comrades. With regard to the question of raids, the Territorial Force of 300,000 men would hardly be required to deal with a raid in which probably not more than 10,000 men would take part. The Government should have the power of obtaining such 354 expansion as was embodied in the Amendment. He would not go so far as to specify units, but when a man joined the Territorial Force it should be possible for him to say whether he would serve abroad if necessary.
§ *MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E)said the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone had referred to the absurdity of having a force of 300,000 to repel raids of 10,000. If that duty was the only one which the Territorial Army might discharge, the noble Lord's objection would be valid, but to his mind the Territorial Army, although essentially raised for homo defence as its primary object, bad always been under-stood to be a force to provide in time of stress the means of expansion for the first line. He would meet that objection by stating that if the latter duty was to be carried out as he thought it ought to be, it should be done on a voluntary basis having regard to the special circumstances of the case. That was where he entirely disagreed with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member asked the men to come forward and give an undertaking to serve in any part of the world, without considering the merits of the special war on hand. The Amendment also went to the very root of the scheme of the Secretary for War, which he had always supported strenuously because it was in principle a two-line Army, whereas the plan of the hon. Member's Amendment would make it a three-line Army. He was sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield would agree that if there was one thing which the Volunteers wore opposed to more than another, it was the proposal of the late Secretary of State for War that there should be two classes of Volunteers. The Volunteers opposed that tooth and nail, irrespective of Party. The proposal of the Amendment that the Volunteers were to serve abroad was a frontal attack to secure that which the proposal of the late Secretary of State for War tried to bring about by devious flank movements—such as by medical examination in the notorious circulars. It was not that the Volunteers objected to medical examination in itself; it was that they were to be subjected to a more stringent medical examination that the men of the Line. The hon. Member, in moving his Amendment, had given 355 the Committee a rehash of the figures which the right hon. Member for Croydon had stated in one of his letters to The Times. They all regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, who, however much they differed from him, thoroughly understood the question from his own point of view. Those figures were wholly fallacious. They were based on examination of the men in camp; but every commanding officer knew that a large proportion of the men in camp were young fellows, and, moreover, many were cast aside not because their physical standard was weak but because of bad teeth. Every one of the men so cast aside was quite physically capable of undergoing any strain in the field. He had urged on successive Secretaries for War that the Territorial Army—or call it what they liked—should be a purely volunteer Army. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman must depend on the Volunteers and Yeomanry trained as highly as possible for his second line for home defence; and that the Militia should go into the first line. Whenever this country was engaged in a war of which the people approved there would be no difficulty in obtaining Volunteers for service abroad to go to the front. By the scheme of the Secretary for War he would be able to have 300,000 men properly trained for the Territorial Army. Under the new conditions the great majority of the Auxiliary Forces would have every year fifteen days camp training, and with a little additional training they would be in a very efficient state to undertake service abroad. A great deal had been said about six months training after mobilisation, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken as if the men were to have no preliminary training. He maintained that with that six months training in addition to their preliminary training they would be quite ready to go to the front. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had stated that there was a dearth of Volunteers ready to go to South Africa. That was not the case. Difficulties were placed in the way not only of units but of companies volunteering to go to the front. He spoke for the Lothians of Scotland, and he knew that out of 3,000 men only twenty men were allowed to volunteer, whereas the right hon. Gentleman said that only twenty had volun- 356 teered, which was a very different thing. If there was a war of which the country approved there would be no difficulty in getting Volunteers to go on active service abroad.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)said he had considerable sympathy with the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Black-pool; but he did not think the hon. Member had considered sufficiently the different conditions or service of the various branches of the Auxiliary forces. He did not think the hon. Member was right in mixing up the Volunteers, Yeomanry and Militia, all of whom wore on different bases. Nor did he agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Volunteers should be put in two classes. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who had had considerable experience with Volunteers, knew how unpopular such a plan as that would be. The Volunteers existed wholly and solely for home defence, and it would be very unwise to depart from that principle. Volunteers consisted in large measure of men in good civil employment, and there would be very great objection on the part of parents and guardians to their sons and wards, when they presented themselves for enrollment, being asked if they would volunteer for service abroad if desired. As to the physical condition of the Volunteers referred to by the hon. Member for Black-pool, at the time of the South African War when the Regular troops were medically examined 30 per cent. were found unfit for service abroad; and they did not find that there was a larger percentage of Volunteers unfit. He had always thought it most improper on the part of the late Secretary for War to endeavour to force on the Volunteer force medical examination. As a matter of fact many regiments were not so examined. The clear facts of the case as to physical fitness had never been clearly ascertained, and the circular was unconditionally withdrawn. It was in the highest degree desirable that the general staff should know accurately before hand the number of men they could rely upon for service over-sea, but that could not be done in this country where there was nothing but Volunteer service; and even in France and Germany, where there was conscription, the general staff could not at all times tell how many men they could 357 command for over-sea service. Only the other day in Germany, when men were asked for for the campaign in South-West Africa, that was found to be the case, and that opened the eyes of the German officers to the difficulties of a tropical campaign.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by raising the principle of organising on two lines of defence he disposed of the Amendment. Anyone who had listened to the debate would see that they were discussing the matter in some what of a fog, because there wore two underlying unrealities. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman did not rely on his two lines—his rule was going to have exceptions and pretty largo ones. The right hon. Gentleman had previously assured them that he would welcome the whole Militia regiments. The talk of two lines represented a principle in his mind and a great truth, but he did not want certain people to state whether they would fight abroad until the war came, and those people were those whom they used to call Volunteers and who would remain Volunteers. The second unreality was to state that the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers were one and the same people when they were not. They wore drawn from persons pursuing totally different vocations. They took up the service with different objects, and some were prepared to undertake liability for foreign service while others were not. If these were the true facts of the situation why should not the military authorities take account of them and have their list of Yeomanry or Militia who were going to take foreign service distinct from those who were not.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)wished to point out to the Secretary of State for War that we had more than 160,000 Regulars engaged in the late war in South Africa, and we should probably require in a future war very many more than 160,000 men. If he had men whom he could not order to proceed to the theatre of war, it very much diminished their value as soldiers. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh found fault with the Amendment because, he said, a man would not go to the war unless he approved of its merits. It was a most dangerous thing to say that 358 a soldier need only go to the theatre of war if he approved of the object of the war. How could the Government hope to carry on military administration if every individual member of the Forces was to have his own right of veto?
§ *MR. McCRAEMy words applied only to the Volunteers and not to the Imperial forces.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Territorial Army were members of His Majesty's Forces and if they were to have a right of veto military organisation would be reduced to the greatest chaos ever seen in any army in the world. He did not object to the Amendment be-cause it divided the Volunteers into two classes, those who were willing and those who were unwilling to go to the war. There might be a great number of reasons to prevent a man from going to the front; ho might decline to go, not because he was not a brave and patriotic man, but through other circumstances. He objected, however, to considering the susceptibilities of the men to the extent that they should be able to say that because they were unable to go none of the other men should go. That was pushing attention to the susceptibilities of these people a great deal too far, and he said the Volunteers would push too far, if after having been enlisted for service at home, they tried to prevent other men from serving their country abroad. He had put down the Amendment in a somewhat different form, namely, that the first territorial battalion should be raised and trained like the present Militia battalion with a view to its serving abroad in time of war. He had spoken the other day of the unfair choice which would be put before men when they were already in a regiment, if they were told to fall out, or take two steps to the front, if they were unwilling to serve abroad. That was a choice which it was most unfair to put upon men, and there were few who would have the courage to fall out under the circumstances. It would be better to put fairly and squarely to each man upon enlistment the question of whether he enlisted with the possibility of being ordered abroad, or whether he enlisted for homo service only. It savoured somewhat of trickery to enlist men into a regiment for home service, and then, after they had got them in that home service 359 regiment, to ask them to take two slops to the rear and fall out of the ranks if they would not volunteer for foreign service. At the time the Militia reserve existed men were called up and asked if they would take the obligation of serving abroad for an extra bounty of a pound a year and they found that all those men who were eligible willingly undertook that liability with a light heart and with little expectation that they would be called upon for service. In his experience, liability for foreign service weighed very little with the men, and he thought that if the matter was explained to them at the time of enlistment the Government would still be able to get a force which would be available for service in time of war.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)said he could quite sympathise with the position taken up by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, but it was impossible for the Secretary for War to take up the position that this was a purely voluntary organisation if, at the outbreak of war, ho could embody the whole of the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman had therefore; admitted the reasonableness of the Amendment. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not need the men, but he would need the Territorial Army for the purpose of expansion in time of war. Then why should ho object to a certain number of the men agreeing to become liable for foreign service in case of war? If war broke out the right hon. Gentleman would come to Parliament and demand the right to embody the whole of these men, and once embodiment was granted, every influence, Parliamentary and national, would be brought to bear upon them to make them go abroad. Why, then, should the Secretary for
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F. | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Anstruther-Gray. Major | Carlile, E. Hildred | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Arkwright. John Stanhope | Castlereagh, Viscount | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H. | Cave, George | Duncan. Robert(Lanark,Govan |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cavendish.Rt. Hon. VictorC.W | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.) | Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Were. | Fell, Arthur |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) |
| Baring,Capt.Hn.G( Winchester | Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham | Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford |
| Berkett, Hon. Gervase | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hervey.F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hills, J. W. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Craig, Captain James(Down,E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry |
§ War object to their agreeing now to go abroad, and to go as units? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Militia might go as units in time of war, and why should they make a difference between that force and the Yeomanry and Volunteers? The Militia and Yeomanry were going to have less training than they had had in the past; under the new conditions they would not be such well trained forces as under the old system. Under these circumstances ho found himself considerably embarrassed. He was not sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield was right, but at the same time he could not understand its being opposed by the Secretary of State as a matter of principle. The principle was raised by the late Secretary of State, and a good many Members then opposed it and throw doubts upon it—himself, among others. But the doubts thrown on the proposal of the late Secretary of State could not properly be thrown on the same proposal now, because the whole conditions were different. He did not know that he would object to the opposition of the Secretary of State if he could understand exactly the grounds for that opposition. But the right hon. Gentleman simply said he did not need the men. If he did not get his special contingents, might he not need them? If his special contingents were not successful would not the right hon. Gentleman like to have a considerable number of men who had agreed to go abroad in time of war, no matter where? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to make quite clear the reason for his opposition in order that he might come to a decision as to which way to vote.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 280. (Division List No. 195).
| King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull) | Parker. Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lane-Fox. G.R. | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lee Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Liddell, Henry | Rawlinson.JohnFrederickPeel | Walker,Col.W. H.( Lancashire) |
| Lock wood. Rt.Hn. Lt, Col. A. R. | Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Walrond, hon. Lion I |
| Long, Col.Charles W. (Evesham) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Sheffield, SirBerkeleyGeorgeD. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Younger, George |
| Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton | Starkey, John R. | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Tellers for the Ayes — Mr. Ashley and Viscount Morpeth. |
| Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Talbot.Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxfd'Univ. | |
| Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield) | Thomson,W.Mitchell -(Lanark) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cleland, J. W. | Hall, Frederick |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Agnew, George William | Clynes, J. R. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Coats,SirT.Glen( Rentrew,V, ) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) |
| Alden, Percy | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hart-Davies. T. |
| Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch) | Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Corbett.C H.(Sussex,E.Crinst'd | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry | Cory, Clifford John | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Helmsley. Viscount |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cowan, W. H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Baker,JosephA. (Finsbury,E.) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henderson, J M.(Aberdeen, W.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cremer, William Randal | Henry, Charles S. |
| Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight) | Crombie, John William | Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.) |
| Barker, John | Crooks, William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Barlow,JohnEmmott(Somerset | Crosfield, A. H. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Beauchamp. E. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dickinson,W.H.(St. Pancras,N. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bell. Richard | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Benn,SirJ. Williams( Devonp'rt | Dobson. Thomas W. | Hudson. Walter |
| Benn,W.(Tow'rHamlets,S.Geo. | Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dunne,Major EMartin( Walsall) | Illingworth, Percy II.; |
| Bertram, Julius | Edwards, Clement. (Denbigh) | Jackson, R. S. |
| Bethell,SirJ. H.(Essex,Romf'rd | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Elibank, Master of | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Billson, Alfred | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Johnson. W. (Nuneaton) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Erskine, David C. | Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Essex, R. W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Bowerman, (C.W. | Evans, Samuel T. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Brace, William | Everett, R. Lacey | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Branch, James | Fenwick, Charles | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Brocklehurst, W, B. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James |
| Brodie. H. C. | Findlay, Alexander | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Brooke, Stopford | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lambert, George |
| Brunner.J.F. L.(Lanes.,Lergh) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lamont, Norman |
| Bryce. J. Annan | Gill, A. H. | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gladstone, Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn | Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras,E.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Glover, Thomas | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lough, Thomas |
| Buxton,Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles | Gooch, George Peabody | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Byles, William Pollard | Grant, Corrie | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Cairns, Thomas | Greenwood. G. (Peterborough) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Cameron, Robert | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Gulland, John W. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cheetham. John Frederick | (Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Haldane, Rt. hon. Richard B. | M'Callum, John M. |
| M'Crae, George | Rainy, A. Rolland | Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Raphael, Herbert H. | Tennant. Sir Edward(Salisbury) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rees, J. D. | Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Mullet, Charles E. | Renton, Major Leslie | Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E |
| Manfield. Harry (Northants) | Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th | Tomkinson, James |
| Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln | Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n | Torrance, Sir A. M, |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Toulmin, George |
| Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) | Trevelyan. Charles Philips |
| Marnham, F. J. | Robertson.Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee) | Verney, F. W. |
| Massie, J. | Robertson,SirG.Scott( Bradford | Vivian. Henry |
| Menzies, Walter | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Walton. Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Molteno. Percy Alport | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton |
| Mond. A. | Rowlands, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Runciman, Walter | Waring, Walter |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Russell. T. W. | Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Morrell, Philip | Rutherford, V. H (Brentford) | Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney) |
| Murray. James | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Napier, T. B. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whitbread. Howard |
| Newness, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Nicholls, George | Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester) | White, J. D). (Dumbartonshire) |
| Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r | Seaverns, J. H. | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Seddon, J. | Whitehead. Rowland |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Seely, Major J. B. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| O'Grady, J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Partington, Oswald | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Williams. Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke | Stanger, H. Y. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Steadman, W. C. | Winfrey. R. |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Pollard. Dr. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | |
| Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh,Central) | Strachey, Sir Edward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Price, Robert John( Norfolk, E.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | |
| Radford, G. H. | Summerbell, T. |
THE CHAIRMANruled out of order Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for Ludlow and of the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham.
§ *Viscount MORPETHsaid his Amendment applied to the Territorial Army and the use of the ballot.
The CHAIRMANsaid the clause applied to the number of the force, and the Amendment arose on another clause.
§ *VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid his point was that the number of the Territorial Force depended on the application of the ballot to the Territorial Force.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he know that, but this was a different clause dealing with the number of the force. The Amendment in the name of the hon. and 364 gallant gentleman the Member for Sheffield was also out of order. It was not in its right place.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)asked when he should be able to move the Amendment if it was not in its right place.
The CHAIRMANsaid he was afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have moved it on Clause 2 as regarded part of the question with which it dealt, or it should be moved on Clause 6.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had not an opportunity of moving it on the previous occasion owing to the application of the closure.
§ Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lamont, Norman |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D). | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Agnew, George William | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lough, Thomas |
| Alden, Percy | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Dunn,MajorE.Martin (Walsall) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Elibank, Master of | Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) | Erskine, David C. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Essex, R. W. | M'Crae, George |
| Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight) | Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Barker, John | Evans, Samuel T. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Everett, R. Lacey | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) | Fen wick, Charles | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Findlay. Alexander | Mansfield,H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Bell. Richard | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bellairs, Carylon | Fuller, John Michael F. | Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) |
| Benn, W. (To w'rHamlets, S.Geo. | Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford, S.) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Gill, A. H. | Massie, J. |
| Bertram. Julius | Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John | Menzies, Walter |
| Bethell,Sir J. H.(EssexRomford | Glover, Thomas | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Billson, Alfred | Gooch, George Peabody | Mond, A. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Morrell, Philip |
| Brace, William | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Murray, James |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Gulland, John W. | Napier, T. B. |
| Branch, James | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Newnes,F.(Notts,Bassetlaw) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Nicholls, George |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hall, Frederick | Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r |
| Brooke, Stopford | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Norton,Capt.Cecil William |
| Brunner,J.F.L.(Lanes., Leigh) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Nussey Thomas Willans |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Hart-Davies, T. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Partington, Oswald |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Pearce,Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles | Hedges, A. Paget | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke |
| Cairns, Thomas | Henderson,.J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Cameron, Robert | Henry, Charles S. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Pollard, Dr. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Higham, John Sharp | Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh,Central) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hobart, Sir Robert | Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Radford, G. H. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Clough, William | Horniman, Emslie John | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Clynes. J. R. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rea, WalterRussell (Scarboro') |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hudson, Walter | Rees, J. D. |
| Collins,SirWm.J.(S.PancrasW. | Hyde, Clarendon | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Illingworth, Percy H. | Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th) |
| Cornwill. Sir Edwin A. | Jackson, R. S. | Richards.T.F.(Wolverhampt'n) |
| Cory, Clifford John | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Roberts,CharlesH.(Lincoln) |
| Cotton, Sir. H. J. S. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, JohnH. (Denbighs) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones,William(Carnarvonshire) | Robertson,Rt,Hn.E.(Dundee) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd |
| Cremer, William Randal | Kekewich, Sir George | Robertson,J.M. (Tyneside) |
| Crombie, John William | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Crooks, William | Laid law, Robert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lambert, George | Rowlands. J. |
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 196.)
| Runciman, Walter | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney) |
| Russell, T.W. | Strauss, E A. (Abingdon) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Rutherford,V.H.(Brentford) | Summerbell, T. | White,George(Norfolk) |
| Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) | Taylor,TheodoreC. (Radcliffe) | White.J.D.(Dumbartonshire) |
| Samuel,S.M.(Whitechapel) | Tennant,Sir Edward)(Salisbury | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Schwann,C.Duncan(Hyde) | Tennant,H.J.( Berwickshire) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Schwann,Sir C. E.(Manchester) | Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.) | Whitley,JohnHenry(Halifax) |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.) | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr | Whittaker, SirThomas Palmer |
| Sears, J. E. | Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E | Wiles, Thomas |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Tomkinson, James | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford) | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Williams. Osmond(Merioneth) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Toulmin, George | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Smeaton,Donald Mackenzie | Vivian, Henry | Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton) |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Walton,SirJohnL.(Leeds,S.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Stanley,Nn.A.Lyulph(Chesh ) | Ward,John(Stoke-upon-Trent | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease |
| Steadman, W. C. | Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton | |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wardle, George J. | |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Waring, Walter | |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F | Gibbs,G.A.(Bristol,West) | Randles,Sir John Scurrah |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashfrd | Rawlinson.JohnFrederickPeel |
| Ashley, W. W. | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt Hn. Sir H. | Hervey,FW.F.(BurySt.Edm'ds | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hills, J. W. | Seddon, J. |
| Balfour,Rt. Hn.AJ.(City Lond. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD. |
| Banbury,SirFrederickGeorge | Jowett, F. W. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Starkey, John R |
| Beckett, Hon.Gervase | King.SirHenrySeymour(Hull) | Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester) |
| Bignold. Sir Arthur | Lane-Fox, G.R, | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Lee, ArthurH( Hants.,Fareham) | Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Liddell, Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cave, George | Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cavendish,Rt. Hn.Victor C.W. | Long, Rt.Hn. Walter( Dublin.S. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Chamberlain.Rt Hn.J. A.( Wore. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Walker,Col. W. H.( Lancashire) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walrond. Hon. Lionel |
| Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham) | Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred | Warde,Col.C.E.(Kent,Mid) |
| Cochrane,Hon.Tho.,.H.A. E. | Macpherson. J. T. | Williams, Col.R.(Dorset, W. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Willoughby de Eresby Lord |
| Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim. S.) | Middlemore,John Throgmorton | Wortley,Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart- |
| Craig,Captain James( Down, E.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham. Rt, Hon.George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Tellers for. the Noes—vis- |
| Douglas,Rt.Hon.A.Akers- | Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield | count Castlereagh and Mr. |
| Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan | O'Grady, J. | Fell. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend) | |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington | |
| Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Percy, Earl |
§ Clause 6:
§ MR. WYNDHAMmoved an Amendment to insert in the first sub-section of the clause words providing, first, that when 50 per cent. of all ranks serving in any part of the Territorial Force accept before embodiment either or both of the liabilities set out in Clause 12 (a and b) (area of service of Territorial Force), that part shall, in respect of government, discipline and pay, be under the orders of the general officer commanding the district in which they are trained. Under Clause 12 the right hon. Gentleman invited and contemplated offers from parts 368 of the men of the Territorial Force to subject themselves to the liability—
(a) To serve in any place outside the United Kingdom, or (b) to be called out for actual service for purposes of defence at such places in the United Kingdom as may be specified in their agreement, whether the Territorial Force is embodied or not.The Secretary of State for War contemplated in the Bill and in his speeches certain exceptions from what he had called the organisation upon two lines. He was not seeking to traverse or undermine that organisation. He thought it was a mistake, but the right hon. Gentleman was having his own way. Taking 369 the position as it stood there were to be some exceptions. Section 11 made provision to enable men in the Territorial Force to enlist in the Special Reserve, but he did not think it was contemplated that the Volunteers should enlist in the Special Reserve. What was contemplated was that those who were now serving in the Militia, should, in certain cases, undertake this obligation, which was tantamount to the Militia undertaking an obligation for over-sea service. He put a Question the other day as to whether it would be possible for some 200 or 300 men and half their officers to enlist in a body in the Special Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman replied that that would not be impossible, in fact he said he would welcome it. It was, therefore, clear from the Bill as it stood that a whole battalion of Militia could come out of the second line and occupy the same position as the Militia now occupied, which he would call that of a support to the first line. That exception to the rule did not end with the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman was expecting that the Yeomanry cavalry would provide a certain proportion of men to act with the Regulars before the embodiment contemplated in the Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman was contemplating and even asking for a considerable draft from the second line. It was also contemplated that the Volunteer artillery would man the fortresses in such places as the Mersey. He contended that all the men embraced in those exceptions ought to be under the command of the general officer commanding the district in which they were trained. They would have confusion worse confounded if the men who were exceptions from the rule, who wore really an integral part of the first line, were not in the future placed under the command of the man who was responsible for mobilising the first line. There were to be executive and administrative generals. He contended that the plan must break down unless those who subjected themselves to this liability were under the executive command and administrative control of the general officer in command of the district in which they were trained. Men could not be trained and inspected by one set of officers, and then suddenly, when the crisis came, be transferred to the control of another set of officers. It was notorious, for instance, that different 370 generals took different views of the art of manoeuvring. It was important, therefore, from the military point of view, that the general to use the men should be the general who trained them. It was also essential, from the administrative point of view, that the horsing and provisioning of these men should be under the administration of those who were to conduct the warlike operations, and not-under the administration of the County Associations.
§ He begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, '(a) Provided that when fifty per cent. of all ranks serving in any part of the Territorial Force accept before embodiment either or both of the liabilities hereinafter enacted in section twelve (two) (a) and (b) that part shall in respect of government and discipline be under the orders of the general officer commanding the district in which it is trained, and'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *MR. HALDANEsaid that under Clause 12 of the Bill to which this Amendment made reference any part of the Territorial Force might make an offer either to serve outside the United Kingdom or to be allotted for a particular place of defence in the United Kingdom, and, on such offer being accepted, they were liable to the extent of the offer. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that when 50 per cent. of all ranks serving in any part of the Territorial Force accepted the liabilities indicated in Clause 12, the whole of that body was to go over to the control of the general officer commanding the district in which it was trained. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he, the Secretary for War himself, made exceptions to keeping distinct the two lines—that there were units or groups of men who belonged in part to the one and in part to the other. He had said and must say that in order to get an analogy. The men with whom it was proposed to deal were to be in respect of government and discipline under the general officer commanding the district, and for other purposes to be part of the Territorial Second Line Force. Was there any analogy between that and anything else in the plan? He would take the Militia. He would be very glad to see a Militia 371 unit going over into one of those training battalions, and the men enlisting in one of these training battalions, and the officers moving up into the first line, as it were. That might very well be, and then that Militia unit would belong to the Regular line. He would take the case of the Yeomanry Cavalry. The Yeomanry Cavalry were to furnish some fourteen squadrons, and those squadrons were to be under liability to serve abroad and to form divisional cavalry for the Regular expeditionary force. What was their position? They were supernumerary to the regiments from which they came. They were not to fill two rôles. They, again, belonged for all purposes to the Regular Forces. Their engagement was one that took them over to the Regular side. The same thing occurred in the Artillery. As regarded the training brigades of the Artillery, the men who were trained there would not belong to the Territorial Force, but to the Regulars; they would train for service with the Regular Artillery. Then there was the Army Service Corps. The War Office proposed to train a certain number of men supernumerarily to their own units of the Territorial Force, but they would take engagements to serve with the Regulars, and to the Regulars they would go. In other words, the principle) throughout was not to have any men put down to fulfil two functions. One of the great curses of the existing organisation was that men were labelled for two functions. Under Clause 12 the Government only said that if a unit or man remaining in the Territorial Force engaged to serve abroad or for some particular purpose the Government would accept the engagement; but the service should be rendered in the capacity of a part of the Territorial Force, which only in special circumstances went abroad. They were not taking part of the Territorial Force and assigning it to the first line. The Government proposed to keep to simplicity. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would give a Territorial Force with a line of division running through it—part of it commanded and trained by one set of authorities and part of it commanded and trained by another. The Territorial Force would be broken up; the second line would be cut into two parts, one part being put under one set of conditions and another under a differ- 372 ent set of conditions. It was far simpler and plainer when they had a second line —when they had a Territorial Force—to stick to it and maintain a uniform training. There was no analogy between the part of the Territorial Force which took a special engagement under Clause 12 and the men of the Army Service Corps who volunteered supernumerarily to their own unit to go, on mobilisation, with the Regulars. It would be opposed to the whole principle of the Bill if he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that even now he did not understand what the right hon. Gentleman's plan was, and it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Amendment. They had heard for the first time that a portion of the Territorial Force was to be trained as supernumerary to the Regulars and put under totally now commanders. If he had been aware of that, his observations would have been more vehement on the Second Reading of the Bill. How wore the supernumeraries to be taken away under Clause 12, or was there any other clause in the Bill by which they could be?
§ MR. HALDANEUnder Tart 3 of the Bill.
§ MR. WYNDHAMasked if the Yeomanry were to have the power to take an obligation of over-sea service? At any rate he was persuaded that that could not be carried out if it involved that they were to be trained in time of peace, and then in time of war be drafted to another establishment under different commanders. There were four squadrons in a regiment, but there was to be a supernumerary squadron of 110 men liable to over-sea service. But it would be quite impossible to train live Squadrons of Yeomanry or a corps of artillery in time of peace and take one of them away in time of war. What ho suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman should take men from the best regiments, and that that quota should belong in time of peace to the regiment to which they would belong in time of war.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that the fallacy of the right hon. Member for Dover's 373 scheme was that all those supernumeraries of which he spoke on the Second Reading would be enlisted under Part 3 of the Bill. When they wore dealing with Clause 12 they were dealing with the Territorial Army.
§ MR. GUEST (Cardiff District)said that the proposal of the right hon. Member for Dover seemed to him to make confusion worse confounded. The point of the right hon. Gentleman was whether the anomaly should exist in time of peace or in time of war. The scheme of the right hon. Member for Dover was that it should exist in time of peace, whereas that of the Secretary for War was that it should exist in time of war. If he had to make the choice he would prefer that of the Secretary for War, for after all war was the exception, and peace the general rule. Moreover, however careful our preparation for war might be, a certain amount of confusion and improvisation must take place, and he personally would prefer that the organisation should work harmoniously in time of peace rather than in time of war. The right hon. Member for Dover had said that if a certain part of a regiment volunteered for service in time of war, then that part of the Territorial Army would be put under the control and command for the first time of other than their own officers. He did not know exactly what value the Secretary for War attached to those supernumerary troops. He thought the simplicity would be greater if the scheme could be got rid of altogether. The right hon. Gentleman evaded all the difficulties he had to encounter in regularising the Militia. It was very likely that in time of war whole units would transfer themselves bodily from the Territorial to the Regular Army. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to the Yeomanry? If they trained the Yeomanry in five squadrons he did not know where they could get the men under the conditions that one squadron was to serve abroad as supernumeraries, and if they did get the men, that squadron would be likely to jeopardise the success of the regiment to which it was attached. If the right hon. Gentleman said fourteen squadrons would be required in time of war, let them ear- mark certain Yeomanry regiments in time of peace for the Regular Forces 374 instead of only one squadron from each regiment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that there might be a distinction between the plan of the hon. Gentleman and that of the fight hon. Member for Dover; but the hon. Member came far nearer to supporting that of the right hon. Member for Dover than that of the Secretary of State for War. If there was any part of the force, whether Volunteers or Regulars, that belonged to the so-called first line, they should be trained with the first line and with first line officers. Surely they might drop all discussion about first line and second line; the distinction was purely arbitrary. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the first line and the second with bridges between, but nobody was intended to go over the bridges, and that helped them in no way. In fact the right hon. Gentleman had found that with our complex state of society he could not manage his Regular Army without assistance from forces which were not Regular. And that showed that there was no real distinction between the first line and the second. He thought that the discussion might be much clearer if they wore to abandon a terminology which was inappropriate to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. They should recognise that they could not make it a better plan by calling it simple when it was not simple If they insisted on two kinds of forces, Regulars and Volunteers, then they came across the very organisation of the right hon. Gentleman, who told them that they could not have an expeditionary force to leave our shores without getting some assistance from that, portion of our forces called the second line. The only question was whether they should have that confusing perplexity, which was inherent in any system of voluntary service, in time of peace or in time of war. The hon. Member for Cardiff would, on reflection, see that his theory that confusion should arise rather in time of war than in time of peace would hardly work out satisfactorily. If simplicity was necessary it would, he thought, be better to suffer inconvenience in time of peace, and let the thing work smoothly in the more trying and important time of war.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman was going back to the old 375 phrases, the Regular Army and the forces behind it, organised in three or four groups; but he challenged him to show any way in which an organisation could be made out of that which would be free from confusion. If they did that they would find themselves trying to label people for two functions. That was the very vice they had to meet. The Militia wore labelled for drafts and at the same time for service as units, and the very essence of the present scheme was to get rid of that. And in order to get rid of that they had these supernumeraries and these bridges, to keep to the old phrase, over which the supernumeraries might come and become part of the Regular Army. The Government had made it perfectly clear in all their plans for using supernumeraries that they should come across the bridge and enlist under Part III. of the Bill, and become part of the Regular Army. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at Clause XI, he would see that it was provided that —
If a man of the Territorial Force enlists into the Army Reserve without being discharged from the Territorial Force, the terms and conditions of his service whilst he remains in the Army Reserve shall be those applicable to him as a man belonging to the Army Reserve, and not those applicable to him as a man of the Territorial Force.In other words, if a man went across the bridge he crossed for all purposes. The way in which it was proposed to get the Yeomanry contingent which was to form a division of cavalry, was by troops, if possible, from each of the regiments, and this troop from each regiment would be supernumeraries to the establishment of the regiments.
§ MR. HALDANEOh, quite different.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTThen you will have two classes in the same regiment?
§ MR. HALDANENot in the same regiment. They were supernumeraries to the regiment; that was the whole point.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the supernumeraries and the others would train together or would one 376 class be, say, at Dover and the other at York.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid that a good deal of their training would be separate from each other and some together. There was no difficulty of any kind about that. He had explained more than once that it was proposed to give a special training to these supernumeraries. They would be enlisted under Part III. of the Bill, they would be paid with the pay of the Regulars when they were out, and they would be in exactly the same position as the men in the third battalions of Militia, except that they would be trained as cavalry. Being enlisted under Part III. they would belong to the Regular side, and would have a special training to enable them to fulfil their functions. It would be very convenient to have these troops training during their annual training with the regiments from which they came. Surely there was all the difference in the world between supernumeraries enlisted under Part III. and belonging to the Regular side, and what the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed to create. It was because they had in their minds the principle of getting rid of the old state of things under which one man was labelled for two functions that they objected to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ COLONEL R. WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said that what would really happen would be that some commanding officers of Yeomanry would find an extra troop put in for the purposes of drill.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid this arrangement was the result of a great deal of negotiation with the Yeomanry Commanders and the Director of Military Training, and in the opinion of exports it was the simplest system.
§ COLONEL R. WILLIAMSsaid he did not understand the exact part these men would bear. It now appeared that the extra squadrons would be attached to the Yeomanry, but they would belong to the first line and not the second. As he understood the new second line brigades, they were to be organised in divisions for the command of which there were to be fourteen divisional generals. A general commanding one of these territorial brigades might be senior to the general commanding the coast defences in 377 the part of the country to which the brigade was sent. He would probably know nothing about that part of the country, and would supersede the man who had made all the plans and knew all about the defences. He thought there would be great risk of confusion, and he hoped that, before the final distribution of the Territorial Army was decided, the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to avoid it.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid it seemed to him that under the right hon. Gentleman's system they would have part of the Regular Army serving under Auxiliary officers; and he had the gravest doubt whether the Regular officers who would have eventually to deal with these men would approve of such a system.
§ MR. ASHLEYpointed out that the Yeomanry recruit was to be taken not younger then eighteen, while any man could be enlisted under Part III. at seventeen, so that those enlisted for home service would have to be eighteen, while for foreign service men might be enlisted at seventeen.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid the enlistment at seventeen only applied to the infantry.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)thought the course of the debate was an argument in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme for organising in two lines instead of three. So long as they confined themselves to that all was straightforward, but when once they came to the third line —the bridges — immense confusion was bound to arise. He doubted whether any of these bridges for the Auxiliary Forces would be found very workable; but it was not for him and the right hon. Gentleman opposite to complain of the confusion they would cause. The truth of the matter was that it was enormously difficult to get an Army of great size, which his right hon. friend thought ho required, under any system. This confusion was inherent in any scheme under which they endeavoured to get men in the home force to serve under different circumstances. He believed the proposals now before the Committee was a little bit better than any scheme previously put forward, but he could not honestly say more than that. The changes wore made necessary by 378 the fact that they were trying to raise a larger foreign legion than any nation had ever been required to raise, excepting perhaps Japan; and to get a force such as the Opposition required would cost not less than £50,000,000 a year on their plan.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that what would happen under this scheme was that a Yeomanry regiment would be asked to say whether it could find so many men in order to make up a squadron who would be first line special reservists and engaged under Clause 29. They would be quite distinct from those with whom they trained, but they would not be a separate body of men. In fact the scheme proposed to do with the Yeomanry what the Militia now complained of and the Volunteers refused to submit to.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid they were supernumeraries.
§ MR. WYNDHAMsaid that that phrase did not assist him. Did it help these men's comrades in the ranks? Did it help the leaders or the officers who had to deal with two separate sets of men on parade? They trained these men on lines for which they were directly responsible to the Military Director, and then when war came a certain number of men were taken away and rolled up with other forces, and put under another man with other ideas. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking a few men from several regiments, take any regiment which was ready to find a squadron and treat that as a first-line regiment, others remaining part of the second line?
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)said the right hon. Gentleman had not received very hearty support from the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the Abercromby Division, who had practically asked him to abandon his bridges, and appeared to have come to the conclusion that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was an extremely bad one, or at least, was very little better than the schemes which his predecessors had put before the House. He did not pretend to have any military knowledge, but the speech of his noble friend the Member for South Birmingham had filled him with considerable alarm, because it had not been answered in the least. The noble Lord had said that certain troops 379 must be gathered together to assist the Regulars, "supernumeraries" ho believed was the word technically used. Those troops might be commanded by a Volunteer officer, though there might be a Regular officer present. He had always understood that great difficulty would arise if a Volunteer officer were put above a Regular officer. No doubt the hon. Member for East Edinburgh would be perfectly capable of conducting any operations even better than a Regular officer; but all Volunteer officers were not like the hon. Member, and it seemed to him to open up a great vista of trouble if, when in face of the enemy, we might have a largo number of our troops commanded by Volunteer officers when there were Regular officers present. He had been prepared to give a half-hearted support to the proposition of his right hon. friend because, differing from the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the gangway opposite, he was rather inclined to think that this scheme would lead to conscription. The point raised by the Amendment was one which should be cleared up.
§ *MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said ho found it difficult to understand what objection there was to the Amendment of his right hon. friend. Since it was moved full light had been thrown on the subject, and he thought it was now quite clear that the training of the whole regiment of Yeomanry under the general officer in command, in case of war, seemed very much more desirable than to take a few individuals out of a Yeomanry regiment, who would thus stand apart from their comrades. If the whole regiment was taken under the general officer commanding the district, he could see no special objection to it, but if individual members of the regiment were to be taken, then anyone who had any experience of the Yeomanry or Volunteers would realise that there would be some element of chaos in the regiment or battalion. The men, when they came back from training under the general officer commanding the district, would be under the impression that they had a special knowledge which the others had not, and the officers who had been with them would have the same feeling. 380 There would be a distinction between the two classes of persons in the various regiments and battalions. The Secretary of State said there was no difficulty in that. The right hon. Gentleman had never commanded a battalion. If he had, even for a short time, he would appreciate the difficulties of the case. His right hon. friend was very reasonable in suggesting that this should be done only where there were those willing to serve under special conditions, and the special contingent to form part of the first line should exceed 50 per cent. of any regiment or battalion. He did not think that any force or pressure should be used on the other 50 per cont. to act in the same way, but that, merely for the matter of training, the whole regiment should go under the general officer commanding the district. He would be the last to advocate the placing under the general officer commanding the district all the Territorial Force, because ho believed that they should be under their own divisional generals, and that those divisional generals should take their instructions from a department of the War Office established for the purpose of dealing with the Territorial Army. It was impossible in every way to make for order, efficiency of training, and the maintenance of esprit de corps if all those things which they considered to be valuable in training the forces were to be interfered with. They on that side of the House desired to see the Territorial Army an efficient force, but the right hon. Gentleman still maintained his love for the complicated and confusing arrangement of weeding out a few men from the regiments of Yeomanry and infantry of the Territorial Army for special training under the general officer commanding the district, while the remainder of the regiment might be trained under other officers of cavalry or infantry whose ideas of training might be of a totally different character. The result of that would be to set up a state of confusion in the minds of the officers concerned. The suggestion of his right hon. friend would overcome that; it would simplify matters.
§ Question put—
| AYES | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balcarres, Lord | Helmsley, Viscount | Sheffield,Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kimber, Sir Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | King,Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire) |
| Coates.F.Feetham (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George; |
| Craig,Captain James (Down,E.) | Middlemore,John Throgmorton | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Sir |
| Duncan,Robert (Lanark.Govan | Pease.Herbert Pike (Darlington | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Viscount Valentia. |
| Fell, Arthur | Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Foster, Henry William | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| NOES | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Agnew, George William | Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Allen, Percy | Corbett.C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Cory, Clifford John | Harniman, Emslie John |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cowan, W. H. | Hudson. Walter |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cremer, William Randal | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Crooks, William | Jackson, R. S. |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol. S,) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dewar.Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dobson, Thomas W. | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Bell, Richard | Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) | King. Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Dunne.Major E.Martin(Walsall | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Benn.Sir.J.Williams(Devonp'rt | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Bennett,.E. N. | Elibank, Master of | Lamont, Norman |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Essex, R. W. | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Bertram, Julius | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E. |
| Bethell.Sir J. H. (Essex,Romf'rd | Evans. Samuel T. | Levy, Maurice |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Billson, Alfred | Everett, R. Lacey | Lough, Thomas |
| Black, Arthur W. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fenwick, Charles | Lynch, H. B. |
| Brace, William | Findlay, Alexander | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs |
| Branch, James | Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford,S.) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brigg, John | Gill, A. H. | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John | M'Callum. John M. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Glover, Thomas | M'Crae, George |
| Brooke, Stopford | Grant, Corrie | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gulland, John W, | Maddison, Frederick |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hall, Frederick | Mansfield.H.Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hart-Davies, T. | Massie, J. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Haworth, Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mond, A. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hedges, A. Paget | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Clough, William | Hemmerde, Edward George | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morrell, Philip |
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes, 224. (Division List No. 197.)
| Morse, L. L. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Thompson, J.W.H.(SomersetE. |
| Murray, James | Rowlands, J. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Napier, T. B. | Russell, T. W. | Toulmin, George |
| Nicholls, George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Vivian, Henry |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Nuttal, Harry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth) | Sears, J. E. | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Grady, J. | Seaverns, J. H. | Waring, Walter |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seddon, J. | Wason. Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Partington, Oswald | Seely, Major J. B. | Wason.JohnCatheart (Orkney) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Watt, Henry A. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Silcock. Thomas Ball | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Simon, John Allsebrook | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Price. C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Stanger, H. Y. | Whitely, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford E.) | Steadman, W. C. | William, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Radford, G. H. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Sutherland, J. E. | Winfrey, R. |
| Richards,Thomas(W. Monm'th | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards.T.F. (Wolverhampt'n | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—MR.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Robertson.SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd | Thomas.David Alfred (Merthyr | |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Thomasson, Franklin |
§ MR. WYNDHAMmoved to insert the words "Provided the pay and allowance of any man of the Territorial Force have been calculated in proportion to the amount of duties which he performs, and that an extra allowance shall be paid in respect of each extra duty performed and each extra liability taken." He had no desire to traverse the theory of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme or to draw any invidious distinction between one man and another in the Territorial Force, but some of them would have to do a great deal of work which others would not have to do. He had in his mind the artillerymen and the cavalry force, who had to do with horses as well as themselves. The artilleryman and the cavalryman had to do before and after the field day work which represented about two and a half hours labour. Last week he knew an instance where a Yeomanry regiment marched out at 7.30, and received the order to "cease lire" at 3.30 in the afternoon. Consequently they were eight hours in the saddle and traversed from twenty-eight to thirty miles. Before they marched out they had to attend to their horses and feed them. After "cease fire" it took them two hours to get back to camp, and then they had again to feed and groom their horses and see to the saddlery. Often great and unnecessary 384 expense was entailed if the attention to saddlery was scamped. To keep saddlery in a fit condition for training or service or to pass inspection meant hours of work after the strictly military training of the day had been brought to a conclusion. He thought those were practical facts which deserved the attention of the Government. A man in charge of a horse and Government stores ought to be paid for looking after that horse and keeping those stores in a thoroughly efficient and warlike condition.
§
Amendment proposed—
in page 6, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, "Provided that the pay and allowances of any man of the Territorial Force shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of the duties which he performs, and that an extra allowance shall be paid in respect of each extra duty performed or extra liability undertaken." — (Mr. Wyndham.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HALDANEsaid he fully appreciated the amount of work the good soldier had to put in to do things efficiently. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had drawn attention to what appeared to be small matters. He could assure him that while he thoroughly appreciated the value of the man who did his duty in those respects 385 he could not see how they could work out such an Amendment as that now proposed. It was not only in the case of the cavalry and the artillery that there was a great deal of work to be does. He thought the infantryman did more than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, because he was sometimes out all night, and he frequently had a great deal of hard work to do in the entrenchments. The life of an infantryman was becoming harder and harder, both with the Regular and with the Auxiliary Forces. It would be impossible to work out the principle of the Amendment, because there were no means of paying the men by results as there were in many occupations. While he appreciated the purpose and importance of the Amendment the difficulty was giving practical effect to it.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)said he quite anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman would have indicated his anxiety to meet the views of the right hon. Member for Dover, and he realised the real necessity of doing something in the direction in which the Amendment pointed. He questioned whether the right hon. Gentle man really recognised what the extra work involved upon the cavalryman of the new Territorial Force would be. He himself had just come from a training where the conditions had been very peculiar, so peculiar that he heard many wishes expressed on all sides that the right hon. Gentleman had been there in order that he might see for himself the conditions under which the Yeomanry did their work. He was assured that if only the Secretary of State for War could have seen the conditions his heart would have considerably softened, and so far from reducing the pay he would have increased it. If the right hon. Gentleman could realise what it was to be in camp when the camp was ploughed up and mud was a foot deep, he would realise what it meant to keep himself, his horse, and saddlery in a clean condition, and would give a more favourable answer to the Amendment. Surely it was in the interests of the service that those who undertook this work voluntarily should be compensated for the extra amount of work they had to do. The day of a cavalry soldier of the Territorial Force was a long and hard one. He was not like the infantryman 386 who when he came in merely had to go to his dinner or go to sleep. He had to clean and groom his horse, which took an hour and a half or two hours, and then he had to turn to and clean his saddlery and kit. That took the greater part of the day, and ho would not be inaccurate if he said that the Yeoman or artilleryman had practically no time at all to himself during the time he was undergoing his annual training. Perhaps he had an hour between five and six and such time between seven and when he turned in. Surely the man who underwent this extra work should be paid accordingly. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show more sympathy with the case of the Yeoman than he had hitherto done. Unless the Government were more sympathetic they would find the greatest possible difficulty in getting recruits for this particular branch of the service. The troops were recognising that a great deal more work was being thrown upon them and that they were not being in any way paid or compensated by the Government for it.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHin supporting the Amendment, expressed the hope that the Yeomanry would receive a little more sympathy from the Government. The question of the difference between the cavalryman and the infantry man was of great importance. So long as they had to compete with the labour market for the purpose of recruiting for the Territorial Army, it was obvious the Government must be prepared to come forward and spend the money necessary to induce the men to join. Anyone who had had any experience would realise that the work of an infantryman was child's play compared with that of the cavalryman. The cavalryman started the day in the stables, and during the day had to devote a long time to looking after his horse, saddlery, and accoutrements. These duties, which in barracks were hard, were particularly so under canvas when the saddlery became saturated with rain. The extra duty involved in maintaining the saddlery in that state of efficiency which was necessary and economical only the experienced could realise. The Amendment should appeal to anyone who had at heart the interest of the Territorial Army. He had never favoured the scheme of the 387 right hon. Gentleman, but if it was to be a success, as he sincerely hoped it would be, the Amendment ought to receive sympathetic consideration.
§ *MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire W.R., Barkston Ash)said he would like to see the Amendment accepted and applied equally to all branches of the Territorial Force as a matter of common equity. If a man had extra work he should be paid in proportion. It was obvious to everybody that the work of a cavalryman and an artilleryman must be harder than that of an ordinary infantry soldier. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the work of entrenchment done by ordinary infantrymen, but did the infantry soldier have to, go to entrenchment work three times a day as the cavalry soldier had to go to stables, not to mention the extra work of cleaning saddlery? As a result of the system inaugurated by the Bill it was inevitable that there would for the first two years after a Yeomanry regiment was taken over be two classes of pay. If some concession were granted as proposed by the Amendment that might to a certain extent be obviated. The Yeoman practically held the situation in his own hand. There were only a certain number of men in this country fitted to be efficient Yeomen, and unless the services of those men were obtained the Secretary for War could not get sufficient cavalrymen for the Territorial Force. He hoped before it was too late that the right hon. Gentleman would realise the great difference between the work of one branch and another. It would be a great mistake to level down the Yeomanry to the level of other branches of the service instead of levelling up the others to the standard of efficiency and effectiveness of the Yeomanry.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he could not agree with what had been put forward on behalf of the cavalry. In another sphere the infantry deserved well of their country. They had done everything they could to attain efficiency. His hon. friend had dwelt on the terrible hardships of the Yeomanry, but he had forgotten to mention the benefits which they received. He had forgotten the magnificent uniform which was the envy of the infantry and which gave them a great advantage in 388 certain circles. He had also forgotten the enormous personal fatigue of long marches, the great weights which the infantry had to carry, and the entrenchment work to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. When the infantry were marching weary miles the cavalry came riding and prancing past, their plumes waving in the wind. They were the admiration of the multitude. He reminded the Committee that there were mounted infantry who were quite equal to any troops of Yeomanry. In fact the Yeomanry were constantly beaten by the mounted infantry at Bisley and elsewhere. While he greatly appreciated the spirit in which his right hon. friend the Member for Dover had moved the Amendment, he hoped that the Government would stand firm in regard to the principle of equality.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)wished to get some information from the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to whether when the Associations were formed there would be equality of treatment in the different branches. After the County Associations were formed and the Yeomanry were taken over, would there be equality in emolument between the old members of the corps and the new recruits of the same regiment? If there were two scales of pay it would be extremely difficult to persuade men to enrol themselves on a lower scale when men of equivalent rank received the higher scale.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.)was understood to say that the existing members of a Yeomanry regiment would continue to receive the existing pay; but that after the County Associations were formed and took over the Yeomanry the new recruits would receive the pay settled in this Bill.
§ LORD BALCARRESsaid that in that case it was clearly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. Privates who enlisted subsequently to the Yeomanry being taken over by the County Associations would only get one-third of the pay which the original members received, and the existence of two scales of pay would be adverse to recruiting.
§ *MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)said that as long as they recognised the principle that the men were to be paid, they should pay them for what they did. The Secretary of State for War had not met the argument of the right hon. Member for Dover at all. The right, hon. Gentleman said that the foot soldier was often out all night on outpost duty; he had himself been out all night as a Volunteer on many occasions, but whenever Yeomanry and artillery were available, they were out all night too. The Secretary for War had also stated that the infantry had entrenching to do; but the artillery had also to execute entrenching work which was far more severe and difficult. The infantry had only to dig trenches to cover themselves, whereas the artillery had to make trenches to cover themselves and their guns. He hoped the arguments of the right hon. Member for Dover would be really answered, instead of being met by the idle reasons which had been already given. Extra allowance should also be given to the mounted infantry and the machine-gun detachments. If the right hon. Gentleman had the handling of Maxim guns he would know how extraordinarily complicated their mechanism was, and how liable they were to jam. He had had a Maxim gun section under his command for two years, and he knew the enormous amount of extra work entailed on the men of that section. They had not only their own duties to perform and their rifles to look after, but after a field day, in which they had to drag the machine-guns, they had to spend long hours in stripping the guns and cleaning them and getting them into ship-shape order for the work of the 390 following day. It was of paramount importance to get the pick of the men for the machine-gun section, and that could only be done by making them an extra allowance for the additional duties they had to perform. He thought that the Amendment deserved support.
§ *MR. LANE-FOXsaid he understood from a letter written to him by the Secretary for War that the men who had enlisted for three years under present conditions would continue to receive the pay fixed when they enlisted until the end of their engagement.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid that any promise made would be adhered to.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.)said that for three years there would be practically no change, but when the Yeomanry regiments came under the County Associations there would be a change of pay.
§ MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)said that supposing a man enlisted for three years between now and the Bill coming into force, and that a County Association was formed next year to takeover the control of the Yeomanry, and thereafter a man enlisted for three years, there would be in the same regiment two sets of men serving at different rates of pay.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes, 48; Noes, 246. (Division List No. 198.
| AYES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lockwood.Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fardell, Sir T. George | Middlemore,John Throgmorton |
| Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester | Fell, Arthur | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Boyle, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Houston, Robert Paterson | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Cave, George | Kennaway, Rt.Hon.Sir.John H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham) | Keswick, William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | King.SirHenrySeymour (Hull) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Craig,Captain James (Down E.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Sheffield.SirBerkeleyGeorge D |
| Sloan, Thomas Henry | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George | Viscount Valentia. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lough, Thomas |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras, N. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Agnew, George William | Duncan.C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall | Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester) |
| Alden, Percy | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Elibank, Master of | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Essex, R. W. | Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Esslemont, George Birnie | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Callum, John M. |
| Baker, Joseph A, (Finsbury, E.) | Everett. R. Lacey | M'Crae, George |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Barlow John Emmott(Somerset | Fenwick, Charles | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Findlay, Alexander | M'Micking. Major G. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter | Maddison, Frederick |
| Barry.Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Beck, A.Cecil | Fuller, John Michael F. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Bell, Richard | Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford, S. | Mansfield.H.Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Gill, A. H. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Benn,SirJ Williams (Devonport | Gladstone,Rt Hn.Herbert John | Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) |
| Benn,W.T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Glover, Thomas | Marnham. F. J. |
| Bennett, E.N. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Massie. J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Grant, Corrie | Micklem. Nathaniel |
| Bertram, Julius | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bethell.Sir J. H.( Essex.Romford | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Mond, A. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Gulland, John W. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Billson, Alfred | Gurdon, Sic W. Brampton | Montgomery. H. G. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hall, Frederick | Morrell. Philip |
| Brace, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morse, L. L. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Harmsworth.Cecil B.(Wore'r) | Murray, James |
| Branch, James | Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh | Napier, T. B. |
| Brigg, John | Hart-Davies, T. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Haworth. Arthur A. | Nicholls, George |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Brunner.J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Hedges, A. Paget | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hemmerde; Edward George | O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Grady, J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Henry, Charles S. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Herbert,T.Arnold (Wycombe) | Partington, Oswald |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham, John Sharp | Paul, Herbert |
| Byles. William Pollard | Hobart, Sir Robert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Hobhouse, Charles E. M. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cameron, Robert | Holt, Richard Durning | Pickersgill. Edward Hare |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pollard. Dr. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hudson, Walter | Price,C.E.(Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hyde, Clarendon | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jackson, R. S. | Priestley,W.E. B.( Bradford. E.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Radford, G. H. |
| Clough, William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Clynes, J. R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Coats,SirT. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rea,Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. | Kekewich. Sir George | Rendall. Athelstan |
| Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd | King,Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th |
| Cornwall. Sir Edwin A. | Laidlaw, Robert | Richards. T. F. (Wolverhampt'n |
| Cory, Clifford John | Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster) | Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Lambert, George | Roberts. John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lamont, Norman | Robertson. Rt. Hn. E (Dundee) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Layland- Barratt, Francis | Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd |
| Crooks, William | Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E. | Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lever,W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Rowlands..J |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Levy, Maurice | Russell, T. W. |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Summerbell, T. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, J, D). (Dumbartonshire) |
| Samuel. S. M. (Whitechapel) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Sears,.J. E. | Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whitehead, Rowland) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E. | Whitley,John Henry (Halifax) |
| Seddon..J. | Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Thomasson, Franklin | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Thompson,.J. W.H.(Somerset,E. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Shipman. Dr. John G. | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Toulmin, George | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Vivian, Henry | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Walters, John Tudor | Winfrey, R. |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent) | |
| Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Wardle, George J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Steadman, W. C. | Waring. Walter | |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Watt, Henry A. |
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved an Amendment to provide that for the effective central administration of the Territorial Force a Department should be established at the War Office under an officer having special knowledge and experience with the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, and ranking as the third military member of the Army Council. The words with the exception that they only applied to the Volunteers were on the Paper as an Amendment to Clause 5, but the Chairman suggested that they would not properly come in at that point, and therefore he moved them in this place and added the words which extended the provision to Yeomanry and Militia. A Royal Commission, composed of a large number of very experienced Members, had sat upon the Constitution of the Militia and Volunteers, under the Chairmanship of the Duke of Norfolk. They pointed out that the Volunteers owed their existence to the goodwill of its officers and men, and the fact that it did not attain to the standard of the Regular Army was in no way attributable to them. They recommended that the Volunteer force should be managed at the War Office by a separate Department which had special experience of Volunteers and should report direct to the Army Council. That Report was signed by nearly every Member of the Commission. There was a supplementary Report by Colonel O'Callaghan Westwood who had given great attention to the Auxiliary Forces, and whose opinion carried great weight, and he said he had no doubt whatever that the maladministration which had been recorded in the Report would have been greatly 394 decreased if they had had at the War Office a Department to which abuses could be reported with a representative so highly placed that he could have sought redress from the Secretary of State for War. He was quite sure that if the Territorial Force was to succeed it must be administered at the War Office by a distinctly separate Department manned by officers who were experienced in the administration of the Yeomanry, Militia and Volunteers, and had a belief in those forces. He quite agreed that a good deal had been done in this direction in recent years. Up to 1875 there was nothing done in regard to the Auxiliary Forces, but in that year Sir Edward Bulwer was appointed first Adjutant General. Then under Mr. Brodrick or some other Secretary for War an Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces was created, but that officer never had any real authority. He was always under the Adjutant-General, and was always a subordinate officer. Recently an Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces was appointed in the person of General Mackinnon, an extremely able officer in the field, with a great knowledge of the Auxiliary Forces, but General Mackinnon had never been placed in a position in which he had his proper place as Inspector-General; he had always been under the Adjutant-General. He had no independent office of any kind, and he could only say to any officer who interviewed him that he would submit his views to his superior officer. The result was that although General Mackinnon's experience was very great he had not been able to carry out what he would have been able to do if he had been placed in a superior position. They had 395 always protested against the administration of the Auxiliary Forces being a more subordinate department to the Adjutant-General's. They bore no ill-will against the Adjutant General, General Douglas, who was an experienced officer. There was nothing personal in what they said, but the Auxiliary Forces felt very strongly that their numbers and importance entitled them to be represented by a general officer or an officer of high rank with a position on the Army Council, so that he would be able to lay before the Army Council the necessities and feelings of the Auxiliary Forces. The Secretary for War said he thought this was a very important matter, and so long as he was at the War Office he would make himself responsible for the Auxiliary Forces, but they did not know how long the right hon. Gentleman with his genial good temper would be at the head of military affairs. If this measure passed he would do all in his power to make it a success, but he was quite certain that it could not be successful unless the Auxiliary Forces were represented on the Army Council by a general officer or officer of high rank who was conversant with and had had experience of the Auxiliary Forces, who was, above all, a believer in them, and whose reputation depended upon their efficiency. He therefore hoped that the Amendment, which was moved with a genuine desire to put something in the Bill in order to make it a success, would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 21, at end, to add the words 'And for the effective central administration of this force a department shall be established at the War Office under an officer having special knowledge and experience with the Volunteers, and ranking as the third military member of the Army Council." — (Sir Howard Vincent.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the real point of difference between the Secretary of State and the hon. and gallant Member was this—that whereas the latter desired that the Auxiliary Forces should be represented by a military officer of experience, the former believed that that was not the desire of the Auxiliary Forces as a whole. ["No."] He was 396 told that the overwhelming opinion of that body was that their representative should be a civilian who was himself a member of the Auxiliary Forces, and not a soldier. What was it they wanted represented on the Army Council? They wanted, not the mere military point of view of how much and in what way they should train, but that there should be some one intimately acquainted from personal experience with the needs and requirements, from an inside point of view, of citizen soldiers. The most sympathetic of soldiers did not and could not, from the nature of his service in the Army, know as much about what was passing in the minds of civilians as one who was himself a civilian and who happened to be a politician. The director-general of the Auxiliary Forces would be associated with the Civil member of the Council, and give him the advantage of his military knowledge and experience.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the Civil member of the Council was intended to be an officer of the Auxiliary Forces.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it was impossible to say whether the next Government or, indeed, the present Government would appoint to the post a member of that House or the other—for he must belong to one or the other—for his eminence as a soldier or for his eminence as a politician. As a matter of fact, the last two Under-Secretaries at the War Office had been, either Regular soldiers or members of the Auxiliary Forces, or both; and no doubt that was a consideration which would not be lost sight of in the future. The Government felt a great desire to proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but they could not accept the Amendment for fear it might unduly tie their hands.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERdid not think that those who took any interest in this particular organisation would be quite satisfied with the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for India. That reply in brief was that the representative of the Territorial Force on the Army Council was to be the Under-secretary of State for War.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEThe Civil member.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that did not alter the position in the slightest. This was not the first time the matter had come up. On many occasions they had strongly advocated what his hon. and gallant friend had advocated that evening but they would never have accepted under the old system what the Under-secretary of State now proposed. All they would have accepted then was that for which the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield appealed, namely, a direct representative of the Territorial Force on the Army Council. Either they should have an officer of the Regular Forces who thoroughly understood the Volunteers, or an officer of the Auxiliary Forces who understood their needs and views. Such an officer should be put in a position of responsibility at the War Office. They asked for a separate department at the War Office because they believed the Auxiliary Forces had suffered more from lack of clear representation of their views to the War Minister and through him to the Cabinet, than from any other source. They were told that they were being given a new Home defence force with clearly defined duties, and providing for the Regular Army a reserve in time of war such as the Regular Army had never had before from the Auxiliary Forces; and yet, at the very time the Auxiliary Forces were given an entirely now position, they were told that to satisfy their anxious demand for a clearer and stronger representation of their views a Civil member, advised by the Director - general, was to represent them at the War Office. He did not think that any auxiliary officer in the House would be satisfied with that, and he believed that if his hon. friend's Amendment had been proposed by the Government not five Members on the other side of the House would have been found to oppose it. [An HON. MEMBER: Not one.] Again and again his friends had urged a separate department at the War Office, with for its head an auxiliary officer of great experience—a man, say, like Sir Alfred Turner; or there were many other officers who had great sympathy with the Auxiliary Forces, who would be able to represent directly to the War 398 Office or the Army Council the consensus of opinion the needs and position in our military organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. In the last Parliament when they were fighting the fight of the Auxiliary Forces, and fighting for Army Reform, they looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as one who understood the position and sympathised with their views in regard to the Auxiliary Forces. What possible objection could he have to this Amendment? With a separate department, they would have at the head of it an officer who would understand the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and they would have a direct representation of the Auxiliary Forces at the War Office. He strongly supported the Amendment.
§ *.MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)said ho believed that the Amendment had more substance and real merit than any which had preceded it. He did not say that the Secretary for War should accept this Amendment in the exact form moved, but he did not think it would be wise that he should leave the matter as it had been presented by the Under-Secretary for India. This was a very real grievance which the Auxiliary Forces had been suffering from for years. Their complaint had always been that they had never been understood by the War Office nor even by the Army Council. They had certainly hoped that those days had now gone, and that under the new organisation they would have a separate department and direct representation on the Army Council. He did not think that representation through a Civil member would at all meet the case. The Civil member might be the Under-secretary of State, who would be chosen for his administrative abilities and not because of his military knowledge. He held that it was more and more necessary, now that they had a new scheme, with large delegation to county associations, that they should have at the Army Council direct representation of the Auxiliary Forces by a military man, and he did not say that that military man should be a member of the Auxiliary Forces. There were in the British Army at the present time many military men who had been adjutants, and had experience of Volunteer corps; and he would almost go the length of saying that he would take any man who 399 had personal experience of the Auxiliary Forces as a representative on the Army Council. Really he thought that was essential, and direct representation they should have. They were going to create a Territorial Army which was to be sufficient in itself, and surely, if the Secretary for War would for a moment think what was to be expected from that Territorial Army, he would feel that there must be a separate department with direct representation on the Army Council, so that he might have expert opinion to guide him in any now schemes or new administration of the forces. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at once, if he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, give the Committee such an undertaking as would show that he realised that direct representation, with a separate department for the Territorial Army, was absolutely necessary.
§ MR. WYNDHAMendorsed what had been said by the hon. Member. The Under-Secretary for India had suggested a Civil member of the Council; but what guns would such a member carry against the distinguished generals on the Council? The view of the Auxiliary Forces was that, if they were to have fair play on the Army Council, their representative must have the same standing in the Army as the distinguished generals who would be his colleagues. If it were made worth his while many an officer would take an interest in the Auxiliary Forces. If it were a prize to a distinguished soldier who made the Auxiliary Forces the subject of his attention to represent the Force on the Council, it would be doing more for those Forces than representation in the sense in which the Under-Secretary for India 400 understood it. Years ago the Auxiliary Forces had more effective representation at the War Office than now when about the fourth great general was in charge of the Recruiting and Auxiliary Forces.
§ MR. HALDANEsaid it had been suggested that the best way of getting the organisation of the Territorial Army worked out was that it should be represented on the Army Council by either a Regular soldier having some special interest in it or by a Territorial soldier who knew the facts; because the traditions of the Army Council were that the big soldier—and the big soldier was always a Regular soldier—who had held high command should, in military matters, carry the greatest weight in the Council, and no Auxiliary Force officer could compete with him. They must be practical, and consider how they were to get the best organisation for the Territorial Army. So difficult was the problem that he thought it was desirable that, in the first instance, it should be worked out by the Minister chiefly responsible to Parliament. The Secretary of State, after all, always had more influence on the Army Council than anyone else, and he would tell the Committee frankly what was in his mind on this subject. He proposed to take the whole matter into his own hands, and to be the representative of the Territorial Army on the Army Council He proposed to have a Department presided over by someone who had great knowledge of the Auxiliary Forces, and he would have in his Department representatives of the Territorial Army— people also with express knowledge—and he would be in a position to give advice; and more than that, if it was thought advisable, there would be an Advisory Committee to give them the guidance and the information they wanted 401 He said at once that the proposal must be of a transitory character. It must last while they were working out the proper form of organisation. They could not do all at a stroke They must feel their way. he thought the true representative of the Auxiliary Forces on the Army Council for the future would be a civilian chosen for his knowledge of those forces; but in the intervening period, the period which must begin when the Bill passed, the work must be done by someone who could speak with authority on the Army Council, and he proposed, not because he had any particular confidence in his own capacity, but because of his influence on the Council, to take the matter into his own hands and work it out. All who knew the inside working of the War Office were agreed that that was the best and most effective course to take. They could set down on paper an organisation which would look well, but it should also be one which would work well in practice. It was easy to create a Department such as the Amendment contemplated, but it was quite another thing to make it a working and influential Department. The whole question was whether the person who represented the Territorial Force would, from the beginning, represent it with the authority required to get the organisation thoroughly worked out. That was a matter the responsibility for which he felt ought to be taken by the Secretary of State in the earlier stages, and ho was convinced that it would be found the most practical course.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the question was whether the man who represented the Territorial Force on the Army Council was to be a politician or a soldier. The right hon. Gentleman had placed himself in the 402 position of representative of the Auxiliary Forces, knowing that the Committee would have difficulty in refusing the offer because of the well-founded admiration they had of his capacity and zeal. That could only be a makeshift arrangement in any case. What he and his friends desired was that there should be some arrangement for a permanent representative of the Auxiliary Forces on the Army Council. He thought it was inevitable that in the Territorial Army political influences must operate more than in the Regular Army. Officers of the Yeomany, the Militia, and the Volunteers were often influential Members of Parliament, and, therefore, political influences did come into play. It was for that reason that they thought it was essential that there should be a soldier at the head of the Department. It was for that reason also that they desired to see a general rather than the Secretary of State for War representing the Territorial Force. The Secretary of State did not offer his services permanently; he said that they had the Under-Secretary to fall back upon. He did not desire to say anything disrespectful of Under-Secretaries, but they would not be able to contend against the distinguished soldiers on the Army Council.
§ MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to reply to a phrase that fell from the right hon. Member for Dover to the effect that no civil member could ever have so great authority as a military member in the Army Council. That was disproved by recent history. No man ever did more for the Auxiliary Forces in a short time than the right hon. Gentleman himself. He did not say that in order to score a debating point. Every member of the Auxiliary Forces knew that it was true. At a time of stress and difficulty— 403 although it might not suit the right hon. Gentleman's hook at this particular moment to acknowledge it—he did more tangible things for the Auxiliary Forces than all the generals or others who had had charge of those Forces before him. He could not deny it. It did not matter whether they had a civilian or a soldier representing the Territorial Force on the Army Council. [An HON. MEMBER. The Member for Dover is a soldier.] He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was at one time a distinguished officer of the Guards, but at the time referred to he was a politician pure and simple. He thought the mover of the Amendment would agree with him in saying that the Adjutant-General should be deprived of power to control the Territorial Army, not because he had any evil intentions towards that Army, but because, in view of his other duties in connection with the Regular Army, he might be antipathetic to the Volunteers. While he could not vote for the precise terms of the Amendment, he was thoroughly in sympathy with the mover in wishing a separate Department. He hoped the Secretary of State would agree to some such proposal.
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood,Rt,Hn.SirAlex.F. | Cave, George | Forster, Henry William |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W. | Gardner, Ernest(Berks, East) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol. West) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Chamberlain,Rt. Hn J. A. (Wore. | Gill. A. H. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hon.Sir H. | Chance, Frederick William | Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford |
| Balcarres, Lord | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harrison- Broadley, H. B. |
| Balfour,Rt,Hn.A.J.(City Lond. | Clynes, J. R. | Harwood, George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham) | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Baring, Capt.Hn.G (Winchester | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hervey.F. W. (Bury S.Edm'ds) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) |
| Bertram, Julius | Cowan, W. H. | Hills,,J. W. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Craig,Captain James(Down,E.) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Craik, Sir Henry | Jowett, F. W. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Dalrymple, Viscount | Kennaway.Rt.Hon.Sir John H. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Keswick, William |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lambton.. Hon.Frederick Wm. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Fell, Arthur | Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Fletcher, J. S. | Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A. R. |
§ MR. GUESTsaid the Auxiliary Forces had suffered more in the past from not being properly represented on the Army Council than from any other reason. He wanted to know why they should not be represented on the Army Council by both a civil and a military representative. It was almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of having the Territorial Force adequately represented on the Army Council, who would control their destinies along with the destinies of the Regular Army.
And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th May, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Amendment already proposed from the Chair: —
Question put, "That the words 'and for the effective central administration of this force to establish a Department at the War Office under an officer having special knowledge and experience with the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers ranking as the third member of the Army Council,' be there inserted."
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 114; Noes, 295. (Division List No. 199.)
| Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham) | Pirie. Duncan V. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S.) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Valentia, Viscount |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire) |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Lynch, H. B. | Renton, Major Leslie | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| M'Micking. Major G. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Marks. H. H. (Kent) | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Wilson, Hon.C.W. H.(Hull,W.) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.) | Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Sheffield.Sir BerkeleyGeorge D. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Younger, George |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Smith,Abel H.(Hertford. East) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Sir |
| Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Howard Vincent and Sir |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Starkey, John R. | Gilbert Parker. |
| O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | |
| Pease, HerbertPike( Darlington] | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv: | |
| Percy, Earl | Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Grant, Corrie |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Agnew, George William | Cheetham, John Frederick | Gulland, John W. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Gurdon. Sir W. Brampton |
| Alden. Percy | Cleland, J. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch) | Clough, William | Hall, Frederick |
| Armitage, R. | Coats,.SirT.Glen(Renfrew.W.) | Harcourt, Right. Hon. Lewis |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Collins, Stephen ( Lambeth) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Collins,Sir Wm.J (S.Pancras,W. | Harmsworth,CecilB.(Worc'r) |
| Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry | Cooper, G. J. | Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh |
| Astbury, John Meir | Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) | Cory, Clifford John | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth] | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Barker, John | Cremer, William Randal | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset | Crombie, John William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Crooks, William | Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Crosfield, A. H. | Henry, Charles S. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Crossley, William.J. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Barry. RedmondJ. (Tyrone, N.) | Davies, David(MontgomeryCo. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies,Ellis William (Eifion) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies,M. Vaughan -(Cardigan | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol.S.) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Benn.SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt) | Dewar,Arthur(Ediburgh, S.) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Benn,W.(T'W'rHamlets,S.Geo. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras,N. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hudson, Walter |
| Bethell,T.R.(Essex, Maldon) | Duncan, C.( Barrow-in-Furness | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Billson, Alfred | Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Erskine, David C. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Bowerman. C. W. | Essex, R, W. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Brace, William | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Evans, Samuel T. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Branch, James | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire |
| Brigg, John | Everett, R. Lacey | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Brooke, Stopford | Fenwick, Charles | King, Alfred John(Knutsford) |
| Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh) | Findlay, Alexander | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Lambert, George |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford.S.) | Lamont, Norman |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles | Glover, Thomas | Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E. |
| Cairns, Thomas | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington |
| Cameron, Robert | Gooch, George Peabody | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Levy, Maurice | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Pearson,SirW.D.(Colchester) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt.Hon.David | Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lough, Thomas | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Pollard, Dr. | Summerbell, T. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Price, C.E.( Edinburgh, Central) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester) | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Taylor, TheodoreC.(Radcliffe) |
| Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs | Priestley, W. E. B.( Bradford, E.) | Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury) |
| Mackaness, Frederic C. | Radford, G. H. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rainy, A. Rolland | Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr) |
| M'Crae, George | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Thomasson. Franklin |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B.(Leicester) | Rees, J. D. | Tomkinson. James |
| M'Laren, H.D. (Stafford, W.) | Rendall, Athelstan | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th | Toulmin, George |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampt'n) | Trevelyan. Charles Philips |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Verney, F. W. |
| Mansfield, H.Rendall(Lincoln) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Vivian, Henry |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee | Walsh, Stephen |
| Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) | Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd | Walters, John Tudor |
| Marnham, F. J. | Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Warn,John(Stoke upon Trent) |
| Massie, J. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wardle, George J. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Rose, Charles Day | Waring, Walter |
| Mond, A. | Rowlands, J. | Wason, Eugene( Clackmannan) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Russell, T. W. | Wason,JohnCatheart(Orkney) |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Morrell, Philip | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White, J. D.( Dumbartonshire) |
| Morse, L. L. | Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sears, J. E. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Murray, James | Seaverns, J. H. | Whitley,John Henry(Halifax) |
| Napier, T. B. | Seddon, J. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Shaw,Charles Edw.(Stafford) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Newnes.Sir George (Swansea) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Nicholls, George | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Williams, Osmond(Merioneth) |
| Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson,P. W.(St. Pancras, S.) |
| Nuttall. Harry | Sinclair, Rt.Hon. John | Winfrey, R. |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wood, T. M.'Kinnon |
| O'Grady, J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Parker. James (Halifax) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Whiteley and Mr. J. A. |
| Partington, Oswald | Stanger, H. Y. | Pease. |
| Paul, Herbert | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh. | |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Steadman, W. C. |
§ The Chairman then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and on the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded.
408§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes, 294; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 200.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Asquith,Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry | Barnes, G. N. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Astbury, John Meir | Barry, RedmondJ.(Tyrone, N.) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth), | Beauchamp, E. |
| Agnew, George William | Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.) | Beck, A. Cecil |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bell, Richard |
| Alden, Percy | Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bellairs, Carlyon |
| Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch) | Barker, John | Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. |
| Armitage, R. | Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset | Benn.Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Barnard, E. B. | Bennett, E. N. |
| Berridge. T. H. D. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Bertram, Julius | Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford, S | Mansfield.H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) |
| Billson, Alfred | Gooch, George Peabody | Marnham, F. J. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Massie, J. |
| Boulton, A. C. F | Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Brace, William | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mond, A. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Hall, Frederick | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Branch, James | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Brigg, John | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Brocklehurst, W, B. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore.) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Harmsworth,R.L.(Caitln'ss-sh | Morrell, Philip |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hart-Davies, T. | Morse, L. L, |
| Brunner.J.F. L. (Lanes., Leigh | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harwood, George | Murray, James |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Haworth. Arthur A. | Napier, T. B. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hedges. A. Paget | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson,Charles N.( Doncast'r |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles | Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Byles, William Pollard | Henry, Charles S. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cairns, Thomas | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Cameron, Robert | Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Partington, Oswald |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Paul, Herbert |
| Chance. Frederick William | Holden. E. Hopkinson | Pearce, Robert (Stalls, Leek) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cheetham. John Frederick | Horniman, Emslie John | Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke |
| Cleland, J. W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Philipps, Owen, C (Pembroke) |
| Clough, William | Hyde, Clarendon | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Coats.Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W. | Idris, T. H. W. | Pollard, Dr. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central) |
| Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jackson, R. S. | Priestley,W.E.B.( Bradford, E.) |
| Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Radford, G. H. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Cory, Clifford John | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kekewich. Sir George | Rees, J. D. |
| Cremer, William Randal | King. Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Crombie, John William | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Crooks, William | Laidlaw, Robert | Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Crossley, William J. | Lambert, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Davies,David(Montgomery Co. | Lamont. Norman | Robertson.Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robertson,Sir G.Scott( Bradf'rd. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lever, W. H.( Cheshire, Wirral) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Davies, W, Howell (Bristol, S.) | Levy, Maurice | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Lewis, John Herbert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Lloyd-George;, Rt. Hon. David | Rose, Charles Day |
| Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. | Lough, Thomas | Rowlands, J. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lupton, Arnold | Russell, T. W. |
| Dunne,Major E. Martin(Walsall | Luttrell. Hugh Fownes | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lynch, H. B. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Elibank, Master of | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Schwann.Sir C.E.(Manchester) |
| Erskine, David C. | Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs) | Sears, J. E. |
| Essex, R. W. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Evans, Samuel T. | M'Callum, John M. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Crae, George | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Findlay, Alexander | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford. W.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Foster,Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | M'Micking. Major G. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Fowler. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mallet, Charles E. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Tomkinson, James | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Whitley,John Henry (Halifax) |
| Stanley.Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.) | Toulmin, George | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Steadman, W. C. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wiles, Thomas |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Verney, F. W. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Vivian, Henry | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Walters, John Tudor | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.) |
| Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon) | Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton | Wilson, P. W. (St, Pancras, S.) |
| Taylor, Austin (EastToxteth) | Waring, Walter | Winfrey, R. |
| Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury) | Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Waterlow. D. S. | |
| Thomas.Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) | Watt, Henry A. | |
| Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr) | White, George (Norfolk) | |
| Thomasson, Franklin | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | |
| Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Glover, Thomas | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Arkwright, Jodn Stanhope | Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley,W. W. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hn. Sir H. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Helmsley, Viscount | Richards.T. F. (Wolverhampton |
| Balfour.Rt Hn.A.J.(City Lond. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Roberts,S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hervey.F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds | Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Baring, Capt.Hn.G(Winchester) | Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hills, J. W. | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Houston, Robert Paterson | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hudson, Walter | Seddon, J. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Jowett, F. W. | Sheffield,SirBerkeley George D. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohn H. | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W. | Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Keswick, William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | King.SirHenry Seymour (Hull) | Starkey, John R. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lambton,Hon. Frederick Wm. | Summerbell, T. |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.) |
| Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lea,HughCecil (St.Pancras, E.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark |
| Chamberlain. Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham) | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin.S) | Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Londsale, John Brownlee | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Walsh, Stephen |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Ward,John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Craig,Captain James(Down,E.) | Macpherson, J. T. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wardle, George J. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Williams, Col. R, (Dorset, W. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Willoughby de Eresby. Lord |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Duncan,C. (Barrow-in- Furness | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart |
| Duncan, Robert( Lanark, Govan | Morpeth, Viscount | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Younger, George |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Nicholls, George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Fell, Arthur | Nicholson,Wm.G. (Petersfield) | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Fletcher, J. S. | O'Grady, J. | Mr. Pike Pease. |
| Forester, Henry William | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | |
| Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol,West) | Parker, Sir Gilbert. (Gravesend) | |
| Gill, A. H. | Percy, Earl |
§ Clause 7 amended.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
412§ The Committee divided: —Ayes, 283' Noes, 123. (Division List No. 201.)
| AYES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Ainsworth, John Stirling | Armstrong, W. C. Heaton |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch) | Ashton, Thomas Gair |
| Agnew, George William | Armitage, R. | Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry |
| Astbury. John Meir | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Elibank, Master of | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) | Erskine, David C. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Essex, R. W. | M'Crae, George |
| Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight) | Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Barker. John | Evans, Samuel T. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Barrow, JohnEmmott(Somerset | Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Everett, R. Lacey | M'Micking. Major G. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Fenwick, Charles | Maddison, Frederick |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.) | Findlay. Alexander | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Beauchamp, R. | Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Beck. A. Cecil | Fuller, John Michael F. | Mansfield,H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Bell, Richard | Furness, Sir Christopher | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bellairs. Carlyon | Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford,S | Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) |
| Belloc,HilaireJosephPeter R. | Gladstone.Rt. Hn.Herbert John | Marnham, F. J. |
| Benn,Sir.J. Williams(Devonp'rt | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry) |
| Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. | Gooch. George Peabody | Massie, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Gulland, John W. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bertram, Julius | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Mond, A. |
| Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex, Romf'rd | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Bethell, T. R.(Essex,Maldon) | Hall, Frederick | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Billson, Alfred | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Morrell, Philip |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Morse, L. L. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Brace, William | Hart-Davies, T. | Murray, James |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Napier, T. B. |
| Branch, James | Harwood, George | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Brigg, John | Haworth, Arthur A. | Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nicholls, George |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hedges, A. Paget | Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hemmerde, Edward George | Norton, Captain Cecil William |
| Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh) | Henry, Charles S. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Herbert,Colonellvor (Mon.,S.) | O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Partington, Oswald |
| Buckmaster. Stanley O. | Higham, John Sharp | Paul, Herbert |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hobart, Sir Robert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Burl, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Buxton.Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles | Holden. E. Hopkinson | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Horniman, Emslie John | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke;) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Channing. Sir Francis Allston | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hyde, Clarendon | Pollard, Dr. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Idris, T. H. W. | Price.C.E. (Edinburgh,Central) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) |
| Clough, William | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Priestley, W. E. B.( Bradford, E.) |
| Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.) | Jackson, R. S. | Radford, G. H. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. | Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea) | Raphael, Herbert H, |
| Cooper, G. J. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Jones, William(Canarvonshire) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Rees, J. D. |
| Cory, Clifford John | Kekewich, Sir George | Renton, Major Leslie |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee |
| Crombie, John William | Lambert, George | Robertson.Sir G.Scott( Bradf'rd |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamont, Norman | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Crossley, William J. | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Robson, Sir WilliaD Snowdon |
| Davies, David(Montgomery Co. | Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Levy, Maurice | Rose, Charles Day |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lewis, John Herbert | Rowlands, J. |
| Davies, W. Howell(Bristol, S.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Russell, T. W. |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinbargh, S. | Lough, Thomas | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Dewar, John A, (Inverness-sh. | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Dickinson.W.H.(St, Pancras, N. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dickson-Poynder,SirJohn P. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Dunne. MajorEMartin(Walsall | Lynch, H. B. | Schwann.Sir C.E.(Manchester) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Macdonald.J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs) | Sears, J. E, |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Taylor,Theodore C.(Radcliffe) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Seely, Major J. B. | Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | White, J.D.(Dumbartonshire) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Thomasson, Franklin ' | Whitley,John Henry (Halifax) |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer) |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Tomkinson, James | Wiles, Thomas |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Soames. Arthur Wellesley | Toulmin, George | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Spicer, Sir Albert | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Verney, F. W. | Wilson,Hon. C.H.W.(Hull,W.) |
| Stanley,Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.) | Vivian, Henry | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Steadman, W, C. | Walters, John Tudor | Winfrey, R. |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Ward,W. Dudley (Southampton | |
| Strachey, Sir Edward | Waring, Walter | TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —MR. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) | |
| Strauss, K. A. (Abingdon) | Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Fletcher, J. S. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Alden, Percy | Forster, William Henry | Pease,Herbert Pike( Darlington |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Percy, Earl |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gill, A. H. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Ashley, W. W. | Glover, Thomas | Ratcliff. Major R. F. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H. | Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford | Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel |
| Balcarres, Lord | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Kendall, Athelstan |
| Balfour.Rt Hn.A.J.(City Lond. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Richards.T.F. (Wolverhampt'n |
| Banbury,Sir Frederick George | Helmsley, Viscount | Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall) |
| Baring,Capt. Hn. G (Winchester | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervas | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hills, J. W. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Seddon, J. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hudson, Walter | Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hunt, Rowland | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Jowett, F. W. | Smith, Abel H.(Hereford,East) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Kennaway,Rt, Hn.Sir John H. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kenyon-Slaney.Rt. Hn. Col.W. | Starkey, John R. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Keswick, William | Summerbell, T. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | King,Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv. |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark |
| Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C,W. | Law Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Thornton. Percy M. |
| Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras K) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Chamberlain, Kt.Hn.J.A.(Wore. | Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col. A.R. | Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire) |
| Chaplin. Rt. Hon. Henry | Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clynes, J. R.. | Long,Rt.Hon. Walter (Dublin.S | Walsh, Stephen |
| Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Cochrane. Hon. Thus. H. A. E. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wardle, George J. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Macdonald, J. R (Leicester) | Williams. Col R. (Dorset. W.) |
| Craig,Captain James (Down,E | Macpherson, J. T. | Willoughby de Erseby, Lord |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Crooks, William | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley.Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles | Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Tellers for the Noes. — Sir |
| Duncan,C (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morpeth, Viscount | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan | Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield) | Viscount Valentia. |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | O'Grady, J. | |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | |
| Fell, Arthur | Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.