HC Deb 04 June 1907 vol 175 cc503-605

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 8:

*VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)

moved to insert after the word "Act" the words "and of the Militia Ballot Act which shall be applicable to the Territorial Force. "He said the Secretary of State had made an appeal for a nation in arms, but he had not attempted to enforce that duty upon the nation by putting into the Bill any clause which would lead the nation to recognise the duty. The other day the right hon. Gentleman made a very remarkable statement. He admitted that country was in the greatest difficulty in regard to its military institutions, owing to the system of voluntary enlistment. Successive Secretaries of State had endeavoured to overcome those difficulties with various schemes which had been put before the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had not gone to the very root of the matter. He hoped under his system to get the number of men he required, and many hon. Members shared that hope, but some of them were very sceptical on the point, and consequently desired that there should be some safeguard in the Bill upon which the Government could fall back in the event of the right hon. Gentleman's hopes failing realisation. The whole question was based upon this point: it was impossible to get trained men in time of war in sufficient numbers unless there was some compulsion in time of peace. It was not that the British citizen was unpatriotic, nor was it that ho was unwilling to serve when the necessity stared him in the face; the difficulty was one rather of want of thought. Men were not anxious in time of peace to undertake the drudgery of military instruction. Where thousands would be willing to come forward in time of war only tens, or perhaps hundreds, would come forward in time of peace and consent to undergo the drudgery which was essential for their utility in time of war. When the right hon. Gentleman threw out the hope that his scheme might be successful he forgot that other schemes which had also been heralded with high expectations in the past had proved failures. Every device had been attempted, but all had been equally futile. The history of recruiting was an ignominious one wholly ignored in popular histories. They had tried voluntary enlistment with high bounties, and they had also tried a modified form of compulsion, but both systems had broken down. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he had copied the example afforded in the Parliamentary wars and had set up county associations, but he did not tell the House that that most successful army of Cromwell's was based upon a system of compulsion. Coming to later times they would find that this country carried on its wars with the aid of subsidised allies and the employment of foreign mercenaries. He knew of no great war in which this country had been engaged, barring the late South African War, in which that had not been the case. That, however, was impossible in the present day, and, therefore, the question of what they were to fall back upon in time of a great war was one which would have to be considered in a different spirit from the spirit of optimism which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed. The right hon. Gentleman had referred more than once to the Napoleonic wars, the last great European conflict in which this country was engaged. Well, it was only by putting the Ballot Act in force during that war that we were enabled to maintain a large force in the field. For the Militia was able to find drafts for the Regular Army and yet maintain its strength. But the Act had another effect at that time. The Volunteer movement, it was true, was partly due to a purely patriotic spirit, but it also originated in a desire to avoid the liability imposed by the Ballot Act. The right hon. Gentleman, in some of his speeches, had told them that in some future war we might require as many as 900,000 men. The highest total the forces of the Crown ever reached during the wars of Napoleon was about 800,000; therefore the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the possibility of Army Forces which would exceed the greatest force ever raised by 100,000. Yet he hoped to raise that force by a purely voluntary system of enlistment. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was doomed to disappointment. He was not asking in his Amendment that compulsion should be applied, but he was asking that the power of compulsion should be retained in the hands of the Government, so that if it should turn out that they were not able to procure the necessary men in the way the right hon. Gentleman expected they would have some power to fall back upon. Compulsion was not, as he had endoavoured to point out, a new principle, nor was it an undemocratic principle, because it was enforced by some of the greatest democracies both in the past and in the present. Neither was it at variance with the principles of the Party opposite, because they had introduced the principle of compulsion in the matter of land purchase, and ho failed to see that it was any wore contrary to the principles of Liberalism to compel a citizen to defend his country than to acquire land under compulsion for the public service. The first argument ho wished to put forward in defence of the retention of the Ballot Act was that it was necessary, and that probably the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to provide an Army without it. The second reason was that it was the primary duty of every citizen to take part, or be liable to take part, in the defence of his country. That principle was recognised by our Colonies and by our late enemies in the field—the Boers. Thirdly, it was the only fair way to raise troops The right hon. Gentleman's Bill called upon a large number of men to serve in the Territorial Army, not for payment but from patriotism and a sense of duty. Under the Bill a largo number of men would serve, owing to a sense of patriotism, at great inconvenience and possibly loss of income, and they would see around them men who were indifferent and were unwilling to face the obligations which they themselves had readily undertaken. Therefore, the only fair way was to provide that all citizens should be equally liable to serve in the Territorial Army. Such an obligation would not encourage a spirit of what was called "militarism" or "jingoism." On t he contrary, the Auxiliary Force that would exist under such a system would be mainly civilian in spirit, and every question would be looked at from the civilian rather than the military point of view. He wished to draw attention to two points connected with the Ballot Act itself. At the present time the Secretary of State for War had to consider, not how many men he required for the Army or for the Territorial Force, but how many he could raise. Under a system of compulsion he would be able to fix the establishment at what he regarded as necessary and to maintain it at that strength. The other day the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Doan said that the Ballot Act was obsolete as applied to Militia. He would be more than reluctant to differ from the right hon. Baronet, who was a well-known authority on such matters, but there were high authorities whom he had consulted who did not agree with that statement. Moreover, there was a debate in the House of Lords in 1900 when the matter came under discussion, and Lord Lansdowne then stated that the retention of the Ballot Act was a power the late Government were not willing to part with. Evidently, therefore, in the opinion of Lord Lansdowne the provisions of the Ballot Act were still applicable. Until they had a statement to the contrary from the Law Officers of the Crown they were entitled to assume that in the opinion of the present Government also the Ballot Act was still on the Statute-book and could be enforced. He frankly admitted that the Ballot Act as it stood was archaic and would have to be re-drafted and re-east. It was impossible for him on that Amendment to suggest what its provision should be, but if the Amendment wore carried it would entail the re-casting of the Act. The old Act allowed anyone who was drawn for service to obtain a substitute. He would object to any system which allowed substitutes. Those who were richer should not be allowed to buy off and compound their duty to their country by hiring men to take their place. It was rash for the Secretary of State for War to assume without any proof that he would obtain the number of men he required under the Bill, and even if he obtained them it would only be at an enormous expenditure, an expenditure far exceeding any amount yet presented to the House as the probable cost. If he were willing to base the Territorial Army upon duty to serve when the Government considered the necessities of of the country required it he would get a more efficient and vastly cheaper Army than he would get under this Bill, and he would have behind him an inexhaustible supply of men ready to fill up gaps in the Army during a long campaign. He, therefore, moved the Amendment, which he believed was in consonance with the dictates of true patriotism and citizenship.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 11, after the word 'Act.' to insert the words ' and of the Militia Ballot Act which shall be applicable to the Territorial Force.' "—(Viscount Morpeth.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)

said the noble Lord's speech showed that he had given serious consideration to this question, and had endeavoured to got at the facts and the law of the case. But he had admitted that the Militia Acts, even if they could be applied to this force, were of such a character as to work in the most unfair fashion. Those Militia Acts not only took no account of the Volunteers, but they enabled rich men to buy substitutes. If there was any proposition likely to prove more odious than another it was that a rich man should be allowed to buy a substitute. What, then, became of the proposal to apply the Militia Ballot Act to this force? The noble Lord had asked whether hon. Members on the Government side of the House could take objection to his plan of making compulsory what was the duty of the citizen. Why should that question be addressed to that side of the House? He was not sure what was the view of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was an apostle of the objection to compulsion. How, then, was it possible to challenge the Government on this principle? No doubt they would have a clear and emphatic utterance from him upon this question. The noble Lord said they would never get this force; but was it not worth trying? The Government were asking for 300,000 men when the establishment was full. They had very nearly that number at the present time n the Yeomanry and Volunteers, and it was not extravagant to expect that such a force would come forward if a proper and satisfactory organisation were provided. At any rate, that was the view of the Government, and they wished to do everything in their power to see whether this force could not be raised upon a purely voluntary footing. The Militia Acts of 1852 and 1860 were both alive and could be applied; but the view of the Government was that it was not expedient to raise the question of compulsion. There was not the smallest reason for passing the Amendment, because they did not propose to sweep away any obsolete machinery. They were not proposing to raise a force of 900,000 men, except in a case of very great emergency. What they were proposing was such a force as would give the public a sense of security, and so get rid of all the grumblings and murmurs that distracted attention from useful topics. Therefore, they did not desire to resort to machinery which could not possibly be required excepting under circumstances of such grave emergency that they might be left to take care of themselves. The Government had endeavoured to frame an organisation for a comparatively small force, and for that purpose they considered that compulsion was useless, and might be mischievous to their ends. For those reasons they could not accept the Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said that if the Government system were voluntary, it could not be uniform. If the plan were tried upon a uniform basis it would inevitably have to be strengthened by compulsion. He thought the plan of the Government was going to fail. There was also a question of principle involved. The right hon. Gentleman said the Militia Ballot Act remained in force. That was true, and it enshrined the principle that in this country for the last thousand years it had been the duty of its inhabitants to defend it. The existing Ballot Act, however, was not only suspended, but was quite obsolete. It was possible to amend it, and an amending Bill had already been drafted and printed. It contained these words— A person balloted to serve in the Militia shall not be permitted to find a substitute. If the Militia Ballot Act remained in force, then to whom did it apply? Under the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Militia would be abolished. If the Militia Ballot Act were still alive, where were the men liable under it to go? Were they to go in to the Territorial Force which the right hon. Gentleman had just said was to be on purely voluntary principle? This was another example of the vague position in which matters were left under the very vague provisions of this Bill. The Militia was to live until the county associations made some plan which was incompatible with the continued existence of the Militia as a body. That was an illustration of the difficulties in which they were placed by the very singular method of drafting pursued in the Bill. The proper course would have been to amend the Militia Act. That course, however, had not been followed. As this was a somewhat academic question, he did not propose to proceed further with it.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

said the Amendment involved a principle which was advocated by a great many Members at the present moment. He joined that band of isolated individuals who favoured the principle without being desirous of seeing it enforced unless it was proved to be an absolute necessity. It had not been enforced in this country for a good many years. It was obvious that if the present scheme failed the country must be involved in a position of great danger. In fact with regard to our Auxiliary Forces there would be chaos. The right hon. Gentleman was very sanguine with regard to the success of the Bill, and he declined on that account to contemplate any suggestion of failure. He could not say that he shared the right hon. Gentleman's optimistic views. Ho did not believe the men of this country would come forward in the spirit in which the Secretary for War wished they would. In saying that he did not wish to say anything against the patriotic spirit of the country, but he did not believe that the men were prepared to sacrifice a great deal for the purpose of displaying the spirit of patriotism. Consequently he welcomed the Amendment because he believed it would place in the hands of the Government a weapon which they ought to possess, and one which, if the necessity arose, they should put in force. With regard to the 300,000 men whom the right hon. Gentleman hoped would come forward, it was obvious that the conditions under which they would be asked to serve in future would be different from those which had obtained in the past. A great many of the attractions which formerly induced the I Yeomanry and the Volunteers to join would I be absent. They knew well how recruits I joined the Regular Army. A certain percentage joined for the purpose of doing something for their country, but he believed that was a very small percentage. That was proved by the seasons at which the majority of the recruits joined. They joined because they were unable to find other employment in the labour market. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would get the recruits he believed would come in. Under ordinary circumstances this weapon, which involved the principle of compulsion, would not be put in force, but he thought the Government should have the power of enforcing men to join the ranks for the purpose of serving their country in a time of great national emergency. That was done during the Peninsular War, and there was no reason to believe that circumstances of equal magnitude might not arise in the near future. The time might come when the Government would be at their wits' end to obtain a large number of men, and when it might be necessary to send a large force to the continent of Europe. He sincerely hoped the emergency would never arise, but he thought that the Government should be furnished with a weapon for the purpose of expanding the military forces of the country.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

said he understood that the Secretary for War fully acknowledged that contingencies might arise when it would be necessary to enforce the Militia Ballot Act, and that at the present time it was a living Act. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the Territorial Army was created the Militia Ballot Act would die a natural death. Therefore the present Bill entirely killed the Militia Ballot Act. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong.

*MR. HALDANE

said it did not kill it legally; so far as the Militia continued to subsist for a short time theoretically the Act would remain with vitality. But should the Militia in their present form become obsolete, then, no doubt, the Statute Law Revision Committee would regard the Act as obsolete

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

asked whether the Act would continue as far as the Irish Militia were concerned.

*MR. HALDANE

said they came under Part III., and would cease as Militia in the old sense.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT

said he understood, at any rate, that the Militia Ballot Act would be practically killed. He much regretted that he found himself unable to support the Amendment of the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a voluntary scheme, and he thought it only just that they should give that scheme a fair chance. Nobody knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that, if he failed to obtain the men under it, there would be and could be no alternative but compulsory service. But the right time to discuss compulsory service was when they had practical proof of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

mentioned that high legal authorities had advised successive Governments that the Militia Ballot Acts were virtually already obsolete, because they largely applied to a class of Militia which had ceased to exist.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)

thought that some of the explanations given in the course of the debates had been rather obscure. He had, unfortunately, been compelled to obtain his information from the public prints, and on many points he was absolutely in the dark. He believed that that state of things prevailed inside as well as outside the House. But there could be no ambiguity about the fact now elicited by his noble friend. They had now got two unequivocal statements— first, that the Secretary for War believed that the Militia Ballot Act was a valid and subsisting Act, and, secondly, that he believed that, being a valid and subsisting Act, it ought to be put an end to. The pretence which had been put forward by some supporters of this proposal, that the Militia was not going to be destroyed, must now be abandoned. It had been stated over and over again, in speeches and in contributions to the Press, that those who said the Militia was to be destroyed were mistaken. But they now found that so entirely was the Militia to be abolished, lock, stock, and barrel, that a set of Statutes which were valid and subsisting, which had been called into action in the past, and might easily be invoked in the future, would be struck off the Statute Book by the early efforts of the Statute Law Revision Committee because there would be nothing to which those Statutes could apply.

*MR. HALDANE

said he had expressly stated that this Bill did not abolish the Militia. The Militia would become obsolete in consequence of the new system set up under this Bill, and they had taken power to bring in Orders in Council to abolish Militia units if and as they pleased.

*Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that if ever there was a distinction without a difference, that was one. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not abolishing the Militia, but he was passing an Act which would be regarded by the Statute Law Revision Committee at an early date as having had that effect.

*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said the whole discussion had been on the assumption that the Militia Ballot Act, if put in operation, would compel these men to give themselves for service abroad. That was not so. If the Ballot Act were put in operation the only thing the men could be asked to do would be to serve for home defence. What was the good of that when they had in the Volunteer Act of 1863 a provision that in case of actual or apprehended invasion the whole of the Volunteer Force could be asked to serve for home defence? He thought it was immaterial whether the Ballot Act was in operation or not, since the Secretary foe War had all that ho wanted with regard to mobilisation in the Volunteer Act of 1863. The clause to which ho referred was in the following terms— ''Every officer and Volunteer and every N.C.O. of the Permanent Staff belonging to every Corps so called out shall lie bound to assemble as the Lieutenant of the County directs, and to march according to orders within Great Britain; and shall for the purpose of this Act, be deemed on actual military service. If any such Officer, Volunteer, or N.C.O., not incapacitated by infirmity for military service, refuses or neglects to so assemble or march, he shall be deemed a deserter. They had there everything they could secure under the Ballot Act. The impression had been given outside that hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to continue the Ballot Act because it would enable the Government in case of war to send men to fill the first line of the Army. That was absolutely absurd.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was generally very lucid in his contributions to the debates, but in this case he was confusing two matters which were totally distinct.

*MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow)

said he was supporting the Amendment because there was an element of compulsion in it. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had forgotten that even the American Government could compel not only Volunteers but every man in the country to fight in its defence in case of emergency. The Secretary for War had told them that his scheme would give the people of this country a sense of security. He could not see how it could give them any possible sense of security; because the right hon. Gentleman would get neither the quantity nor the quality of men he required. The quantity of men for the Territorial Army was likely to be considerably less than it now was, and the quality to be considerably worse. After all, they had had warnings as to the dangers of invasion formal most all our great war captains from the Duke of Wellington down to Lord Roberts and Lord Wolseley. He asked the Secretary for War whether, oven if he succeeded in getting 300,000 men for his Territorial Army without the use of the ballot, he really thought that 300,000 partially trained men would be enough to protect the country from invasion? Three hundred thousand men would not be anything like enough to guard our coasts; and therefore it would be impossible to use the Navy in chasing and destroying the enemy's ships. And if we could not do that, we could not secure the necessary supplies of food for our people and of the raw material for our manufactures. That would mean that our people would be starved into submission in a very short time. The Secretary for War had gone out of his way to prevent the people of this country from learning that it was their duty to join the Auxiliary Forces. He had capitulated to that section of the Government Party who did not take any notice of history; and had prevented the teaching of boys in elementary schools that it was their first duty to learn enough to defend their country in any great national emergency. So far as he could make out the right hon. Gentleman was going to try—he thought probably unsuccessfully—to get 300,000 men to take all the trouble and risk of the defence of our shores, leaving millions of able-bodied men to do nothing to make themselves of any use. He could not see that that was a scheme on Radical or democratic lines. Moreover, by the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman they wore going not only to have fewer troops but less training. It seemed to him that we were really in danger of a sudden war and of invasion every month; and the Government might very well be compared to Nero who fiddled while Rome was burning, or to Belte-shazzar who trusted to water to defend his country—and they all knew what the result of that was.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he hoped the hon. Member would adhere a little more closely to the Amendment.

*MR. HUNT

said he was sorry he had got over the line; he found it rather difficult to keep to the Amendment, but if the Chairman should find it necessary to put him down again ho would remain there. It seemed to him that this attempt to get 300,000 men for home defence without using the Ballot Act meant that with the self-deception of the ostrich the Government were sticking their heads in the mud and refusing to see the dangers to which they were exposing the country; and he believed that if the country had the chance next month they would send the Government out to grass, like Nebuchadnezzar of the swollen head. "Quem Deus vult perdire prius dementat." He hoped, however that in this case, it might be the curious conglomeration of fragmentary atoms which called itself the Liberal Party which would be destroyed and not the country.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was not confining himself to the subject matter of the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)

said he did not want unnecessarily to prolong the discussion; but he was in a position of some difficulty as to how he should vote owing to the fact that he did not understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Militia Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had said that those Acts were real, vital, and living Acts, and he distinctly understood him to say that they applied to the Militia as at present constituted. If that were so, and they could be used in case of emergency, the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill that did away with the Militia in its present form, and by a side-wind destroyed the Militia Acts which were the safeguard of the reserve. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted that position and refused this Amendment, he supplied the Opposition with a very strong argument in favour of excluding the Militia from the scope of this Bill.

*MR. HALDANE

said he was against compulsion in every shape or form, and he did not want to see those Acts put in force.

COLONEL KENYON SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said that the right hon. Gentleman had found himself in difficulty in trying to explain why there should not be compulsion; because he admitted that he could conceive a set of circumstances under which the only alternative to national danger was to have recourse to compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman based his objection to the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground—reasonable and natural enough for him—that if this Bill were passed there would be no necessity for the grumbles and murmurs of some hon. Members about compulsory service. If he could agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect he might postpone further consideration of compulsion till some future time. But if that grumbling and murmuring were to cease the right hon. Gentleman must correct his scheme so as to make the country certain that he was providing an adequate force physically lit for the defence of the country. The force should be capable in regard to the physique of the men and because they had boon well trained. The reason why the country was murmuring and looking to compulsion as a necessity was that this Bill, which was the last ditch between the present system and compulsion, did not provide an adequate force or give them sufficient training. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must amend his Bill in the direction proposed unless he showed that he had put aside the idea that compulsion might be necessary. It might be said that he was allying himself with the advocates of compulsory service, but ho was not. He did regret, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not allied himself with any system for the production of national efficiency and training powers. He wondered whether his right hon. friend had noticed a curious piece of information given in print the other day by those representatives of the working classes who went through Germany, who laid it down categorically that the compulsory service in that country had been of direct advantage to the working population. That was a fact which the right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind as showing an increasing disposition in this country to recognise that some form of compulsory service was not inimical to the interests of the population or adverse to the growing desires of the people. He confessed he was not desirous of advocating immediate compulsory service in this country, but he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman confessed that it might become necessary, and that when it was necessary he would not shrink from it.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

associated himself with the position taken up by the hon. Member for Fareham, although he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would think him very stupid for doing so. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say last night, that the Militia as it existed would to a largo extent be absorbed in the special contingent or reserve In that case the Militia Ballot Act would not apply to any of the Auxiliary Forces absorbed, and the Irish Militia would also be excluded from the possible operation of the Ballot Act while this Act remained in force. However, he might ask if any of the Militia absorbed into the Territorial Force would be liable to the operation of the Militia Ballot Act?

*MR. HALDANE

No.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

was glad to have it made quite clear that the Bill excluded any member of the Territorial Force from the operation of the Militia Ballot Act, His hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh had asked what was the good of the Militia Ballot Act, because they wore already able to secure by means of the Territorial Forces what they required in cases of emergency. But the Secretary of State for War had said he was going to leave great emergencies to take care of themselves, and he was not going by this Bill to do anything to provide any safeguards for emergencies except on the principle of embodiment. He put it to the Secretary of State for War, supposing he had 700,000, 800,000 or 900,000 men, which was the number the right hon. Gentleman expected to keep up for expansion and to get from this Territorial Force, did he imagine that that force would be a Reserve providing a large number of men to go abroad? In the Napoleonic wars four out of every five men who joined the Militia subsequently entered the Regular Army. They might expect therefore that a great number of men could be brought in under the Militia Ballot Act, and that would provide a much larger number of men not only for Home defence but to go abroad. The proposal was perfectly sound and reasonable, as he thought the Minister for War would admit. What he complained of was that the Minister for War had deliberately excluded from this Bill a safeguard which had been given to this country and exercised by them for generation after generation. Did the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to throw aside a weapon which the State had placed in his hand—a time honoured weapon and a live weapon as he himself had said? What harm would it be to retain it?

MR. HALDANE

It is a blunderbuss.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

did not think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the weapon was quite in keeping with his previous utterance, which was to the effect that it was a live weapon. If it was a live weapon it could be applied. If it was applied it cast a responsibility upon the men. The only objection in principle which the right hon. Gentleman had to the Militia Ballot was that it gave the opportunity of substitution. As his right hon. friend the Member for Dover had pointed out, it could be amended, and if his noble friend had moved his Amendment and added the words— And the Militia Ballot Act; is it exists or may be amended, that objection would be met. [Laughter.] Well, his drafting might not be very good, but his suggestion was perfectly sound all the same. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme failed? He knew that the right hon. Gentleman looked upon the mere supposition as an indication of incipient lunacy on his part, but there were a great many people who were very doubtful on the subject. When the right hon. Gentleman had established his County Associations and his Territorial Army, and after he had dismissed his Militia and they had been absorbed, a reconstruction would mean a crisis in the military organisation of the country. Whatever the result of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme might be—whether it succeeded or failed—it must go on for a great many years, and he felt very strongly that if it failed in whole or in part, and we wore faced by an emergency, the right hon. Gentleman would not have done the country or the patriotism of its people justice if through the operation of this Bill he had thrown away the obligations of the Militia Ballot Act. He was not going on that occasion to advocate a compulsory system of military training although he was strongly in favour of it. If they were to look at the cases of Guernsey and Jersey the Committee would see that there they had the operation of the Militia Ballot. In Guernsey they got three times the Volunteers they wanted. Why? Because a kind of Militia Ballot Act was in force, and every employer of labour and every employee knew the fact and faced it. Therefore the people came forward as Volunteers rather than wait to be compelled. He appealed to any hon. Gentleman who knew the facts to say whether it was not the case that Guernsey could to-day get three times the number of Volunteers they wanted. That was not in consequence of a system of militarism, but it was a purely democratic policy which every Colony in the Empire either had or was about to place in its constitution. Australia was even now making it compulsory for every man to serve. He was convinced that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, and, although he thought it was too late, he heartily supported the Amendment.

MR. ARTHUR LEE

asked whether the Volunteer Act of 1863 would apply to the Territorial Force when the Volunteer Force disappeared.

*MR. HALDANE

No, but other provisions of the same nature will.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

pointed out that a large number of the provisions of the Militia Acts alluded to a different kind of Militia from that which was now in existence. There used to be two kinds of Militia, a general Militia and a local Militia. The local Militia had ceased to exist. The Militia Acts were therefore inapplicable in every particular to the Militia as it existed to-day. It was at one time proposed to repeal all the Acts relating to the local Militia as being obsolete, but that was not done and large portions of them were still in force although they did not apply to the present force. It was the Act of 1802 which proposed to establish a local Militia which had been described as a respectable military force under the landed proprietors of a district. Under the later Act it would be found that there was a provision by which the overseers out of parish rates had to pay half the sum currently charged for a substitute in cases of persons not possessing property of £500, and a description was given of the persons who should have the opportunity of providing substitutes. Since boards of guardians were established that system had ceased to exist. A great many of the provisions of those Acts could no longer be put in force in regard to the existing Militia, and therefore they could not be put into force in regard to the Territorial Army which it was proposed to create.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

said he was afraid that he must be suffering from the incipient military lunacy alluded to by the hon. Member for Gravesend as he did not think the scheme of the Secretary for War would be a success. He did not look forward to it as being an immediate failure, because it would take many years to establish, but he believed that when it was put to a severe test, comparable with the late war in South Africa or with a great European war, the scheme would fail as signally and totally as the other schemes which had gone before it. There was, however, at least one good point in the scheme, namely, that it did form the groundwork of a scheme of universal military service, and when the country came to its senses and saw that without a scheme of universal military service they could not consider themselves safe from any point of view it would be possible to go forward on those lines. To that extent, and from that point of view, he welcomed the Bill, but in other respects he did not think the system which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up would be better than the system under which they had been working for some years. Whether it would be worse was a matter upon which it would be premature for him to express an opinion, but at all events, it furnished a starting point, from which the country, when they realised what some of them had realised, what a system of makeshift the present was, could start upon a system of universal service. For these reasons he was glad that his noble friend behind him had introduced the Amendment, as it served as a distinct point at which Members could avow themselves in favour of some form of universal service and definitely state that in their opinion the voluntary system had been and always would be found wanting.

*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

supported the Amendment and said it was to be regretted that the debate must be necessarily curtailed, because a week could be usefully spent in thoroughly discussing the proposal which the Amendment involved. The Secretary of State for War had referred to the Ballot Act as inapplicable, but he was sure that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment did not desire that the Ballot Act, exactly as it stood now, should be applied in connection with the Territorial Force, but only that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether it was possible to embody the principle in this Bill. It was the desire of everyone in the House that the Bill should be a thorough success. But it was felt that there would be a difficulty in obtaining a full establishment on the various occasions when it was needed. Therefore the noble Lord moved the Amendment to ensure that the establishment required would be obtained if the Government at any time found it necessary to have the full strength in connection with the Territorial Force. Under the Bill those who at present were taking, and those who in the future were to take, an active part in qualifying themselves to defend their hearths and homes were subjected to certain pains and penalties. It seemed to him, however, that it was those who took no part in such matters but stood by apparently indifferent to what happened to their country in time of difficulty and stress, who should have the pains and penalties and not those who took trouble in order to qualify themselves to take part in the defence of the country. Under the proposal of the noble Lord the Government would have in time of difficulty the power to call upon every man of suitable age to take his place in assisting his fellow-citizens in the forces of the kingdom. The Amendment did not propose, as some hon. Members appeared to have thought, that the Militia Ballot Act should be put in force at once. It was only with a view of meeting an emergency which might arise that the proposal was made. In that way it would not interfere with the working of the Territorial Act or the forces raised under that Act, but would merely supplement those forces at a time of national difficulty and danger. At the present moment they were face to face with a condition of things which discouraged many from associating themselves with that which the right hon. Gentleman had submitted to the House in connection with this Bill. National prosperity alone was opposed to it, and sports and games, which seemed to take up all the thought, time, ambition, and interest of vast numbers who might qualify themselves for service in the Territorial Force, also seemed to be opposed to the people taking upon themselves any such duty. If, however, it was understood that the citizens of this country were expected to qualify themselves in this way, it could not have other than an excellent effect both physically and mentally upon the young and growing men of the country. The mere expansion of suitable provisions such as had been adumbrated would not have the effect of encouraging a love of war. He did not think that love of war was widespread in the population at all, but there was a fear that what was called militarism would arise. Nothing could be more fatal to that spirit of militarism than the proposal of the noble Lord, and, so far from tending to foster any kind of military spirit, on every occasion when the country was threatened with a crisis or a war the Amendment would tend to the maintenance of peace, for the manifest reason that every man would be liable to be called upon, and therefore every man's interest would be in the direction of the maintenance of peace. Moreover it would constitute a protection against the difficulty which had arisen in France and Germany under their present system. There was no doubt, young men being taken from their occupations for a period of many months or for two or three years, the mere consequences of military training had the effect of killing initiative and originality in the working classes of those countries. At the present moment there was no question that the British working man was far superior to the working man in Germany or France or any other country in regard to initiative, inventive power, and enterprise generally. This proposal, which did not involve absolute military service for any considerable period, would not have any such drawback as was involved in the systems of other countries, while the physique of the population would be preserved and all their powers in the directions to which he had referred maintained to the great advantage of the industrial and other classes of the community. When they looked back upon the spirit shown by every class in the land at the time of the South African War, could they conceive for a moment that any section of society would consent to be exempt from such duties as they rightly believed ought to devolve on every able-bodied citizen in the country? Although the Amendment might not be carried that afternoon, he felt sure that the spirit and principle of the proposition would not have been placed in vain before the right hon. Gentleman, with his great and rapidly increasing knowledge of military affairs.

*MR. MADDISON (Burnley)

said he was very glad that the Secretary for War was carrying out to the full his assurances to many of them that this Bill would not be an indirect method of getting compulsion. He could quite understand that the noble Lord and his friends opposite had some real liking for the Militia Ballot Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had shown him one clause which was unrepealed.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

said that if the hon. Member had done him the courtesy to listen to his speech he would see that he was speaking under a total misapprehension. He had stated that the Ballot Act as it stood was archaic, and would require drastic redrafting. It was the spirit of the Militia Ballot Act which he advocated, and not the clauses.

*MR. MADDISON

said, with all respect to the noble Lord, he judged him by his Amendment on the Paper rather than by his speech.

*VISCOUNT MORPETH

said ho had expressly explained that the Militia Ballot Act should be subject to modification in the future.

*MR. MADDISON

said that would be a subject of separate legislation, and how could they know what modifications the noble Lord and his friends would accept or reject? Therefore, he submitted that he was within his right in reading an unrepealed clause of the Militia Ballot Act, and from that gathering something of what hon. Members were after. It was a truly appalling clause— That in case any person not possessed of any estate in land, goods, or money of the clear value of £500, and who shall make oath that he is not possessed of such estate, shall be chosen by ballot to serve in the Militia for any parish, tything, or place…..the churchwardens, or overseers of the poor, of such parish, shall pay to every such person any such sum of money not exceeding one half of the current price then paid for a Volunteer. The clause was one long drawn out and invidious distinction.

VISCOUNT MORPETH

May I ask which Act the hon. Member is quoting from?

*SIR C. DILKE

The clause is unrepealed.

*Mr. MADDISON

said it was quite clear that if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment he would undoubtedly be making a very serious concession to the openly expressed desire of hon. Members for compulsion. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said he would look upon compulsory training as the triumph of the Bill into which it was introduced. On his side of the House they would regard the introduction of compulsion in any form as being reactionary and requiring vigorous resistance. He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment was keeping to the voluntary character of his Bill, and for his part he should oppose the Amendment.

COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire, Bootle)

said he understood that the Amendment embodied a principle of which he himself had always been very much in favour. He thought that by applying an improved Militia Ballot Act they would have very much greater power than existed at the present time for obtaining a reliable and sufficient service in time of need. The only point he would impress upon the House was that the power should not be left dormant until it was too late. They must recollect that however powerful the House of Commons might be to vote money, and to vote numbers of men, the money would be wasted, and the men would not be efficient unless time was given for training before the period of pressure came. He was speaking with knowledge of the subject, because this day fifty years ago there occurred the massacre of Cawnpore, and, as he was serving in India at that time ho had seen what these needful precautions meant in actual operation. He could quite understand the feeling of the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to compulsory military service; but however repugnant might be the sacrifice to their preconceived notions which they might be called upon to make in order to provide an efficient defensive and fighting force, the sacrifice would be very likely to lighten what they would have to endure if, under some mistaken idea, they did not too long delay making it. Therefore, he thoroughly supported the Amendment. As the Secretary of State for War knew, he was opposed to the Bill as a whole, but he was not opposed to it in so far as it afforded a basis for legislation which would furnish the counrty with a sufficient, and to some extent properly trained force for use in the hour of need. But why was it necessary to break down the well-recognised military lines on which the Army had been constituted?

THE CHAIRMAN

said the hon. and

AYES.
Acland-Hood, RtHnSir Alex.F. Faber, George Denison (York) Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.HughO. Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt. Hn. SirH. Fardell, Sir T. George Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Balcarres, Lord Fell, Arthur Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Baldwin, Alfred Fletcher, J, S. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond. Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.) Hay, Hon. Claude George Sheffield, Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Helmsley, Viscount Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hervey.F. W.F. (BuryS. Edm'ds Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hills, J. W. Talbot, Lord E. Chichester)
Bull, Sir William James Houston, Robert Paterson Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hunt, Rowland Thornton, Percy M.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH. Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount Kimber, Sir Henry Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. King, SirHenrySeymour (Hull) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lee, Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A.(Wore. Liddell, Henry Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Courthope, G. Loyd Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Craik, Sir Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Viscount Morpeth and Mr. Carlile.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Parkes, Ebenezer
Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan Percy, Earl
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Burns, Rt. Hon. John Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Alden, Percy Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.
Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch) Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Byles, William Pollard Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cairns, Thomas Duncan.C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cameron, Robert Dunne. Major E. Martin (Walsall
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Barker, John Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Elibank, Master of
Barlow, Jno. Emmott (Somerset) Cawley, Sir Frederick Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Chance, Frederick William Erskine, David C.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Channing, Sir Francis Allston Essex, R. W.
Beck, A. Cecil Cheetham, John Frederick Esslemont, George Birnie
Bell, Richard Clough, William Evans, Samuel T.
Bellairs, Carlyon Clynes, J. R. Everett, R. Lacey
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.) Fenwick, Charles
Bennett, E. N. Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Findlay, Alexander
Berridge, T. H. D. Cooper, G. J. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Fuller, John Michael F.
Billson, Alfred Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Fullerton, Hugh
Bowerman, C. W. Cory, Clifford John Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S.)
Brace, William Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)
Bramsdon, T. A. Cowan, W. H. Gill, A. H.
Branch, James Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.
Brigg, John Crombie, John William Glover, Thomas
Bright, J. A. Crooks, William Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brocklehurst, W. B. Crosfield, A. H. Gooch, George Peabody
Brodie, H. C. Crossley, William J. Grant, Corrie
Brooke, Stopford Davies, David (MontgomeryCo. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Bryce, J. Annan Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

gallant Gentleman was not now addressing himself to the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 261. (Division List No. 202.)

Gulland, John W. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Seely, Major J. B.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Shackleton, David James
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Maddison, Frederick Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hall, Frederick Mallet, Charles E. Sherwell, Arthur James
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Marnham, F. J. Shipman. Dr. John G.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Massie, J. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Masterman, C. F. G. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Micklem, Nathaniel Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N. E. Molteno, Percy Alport Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Harwood, George Mond, A. Steadman, W. C.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Money, L. G. Chiozza Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haworth, Arthur A. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Strachey, Sir Edward
Hedges, A. Paget Morton, Alphcus Cleophas Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Myer, Horatio Summerbell, T.
Henry, Charles S. Napier, T. B. Sutherland, J. E.
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.) Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Higham, John Sharp Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Hobart, Sir Robert Nussey, Thomas Willans Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Thomasson, Franklin
Holt, Richard Durning O'Grady, J. Thorne, William
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Parker, James (Halifax) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Horniman, Emslie John Partington, Oswald Toulmin, George
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Paul, Herbert Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hudson, Walter Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Ure, Alexander
Idris, T. H. W. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Illingworth, Percy H. Pease,Herbert Pike( Darlington Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Philipps,J. Wynford (Pembroke Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Pirie, Duncan V. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pollard, Dr. Wardle, George J.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea Price C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) Waring, Walter
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Jowett, F. W. Pullar, Sir Robert Waterlow, D. S.
Kearley, Hudson E. Radford, G. H. Watt, Henry A.
Kekewich, Sir George Rainy, A. Rolland Weir, James Galloway
Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James Raphael, Herbert H. White, George (Norfolk)
Laidlaw, Robert Rea, Russell (Gloucester) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Lambert, George Rees, J. D. Whitehead, Rowland
Lamont, Norman Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Lehmann, R. C. Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpton Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Levy, Maurice Robertson, SirG.ScottfBradf'rd Wiles, Thomas
Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Williams. J. (Glamorgan)
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Lough, Thomas Runciman, Walter Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Russell, T. W. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lyell, Charles Henry Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lynch, H. B. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Winfrey, R.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Yoxall, James Henry
Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Scott,A.H.(Ashton under-Lyne TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J.A.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Pease.
Macpherson, J. T. Sears, J. E.
M'Callum, John M. Seaverns, J. H.
M'Crae, George Seddon, J.
*MR. ASHLEY

moved to insert the words "Provided that no man shall be enlisted for any duties for which he is not physically fit." He thought that any man who had had experience with the Regulars and the Auxiliary Forces would agree that such a proviso was necessary. He desired to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation as to the standard of physical fitness he proposed to impose. Was the standard of physical fitness to apply to foreign or home service? It seemed to him that the Territorial Force would be of very little use unless they were allowed to use it oversea. There was Clause 12, which the right hon. Gentleman on the previous day had attempted to minimise; but perhaps later on it might be found to be of more use in time of need than the Party opposite seemed to think. What standard did the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up to ensure that the Territorial Force would be fit to defend the country or to repel a serious raid? He had had the privilege of serving His Majesty in the Militia Forces, and although he found that all ranks were animated with the greatest desire to defend their country, there wore men in the force who were not fit to go on active service, either at home or abroad. The country ought not to be asked by any War Minister to pay for a man who was not able to perform all the duties required of him. Under the present regulations there was some excuse, because there was a great temptation to keep within the ranks men who did not come up to the required physical standard, and they were obliged to permit a certain number of men in the ranks who were not able to carry out their duties efficiently. He might be asked why he wished to impose this severe test when he had not, in regard to the Army Annual Bill, made any such proposals with respect to the Regular Forces. His reply to that would be that the soldier in the Regular Forces lived all the year round in barracks under the eye of his company officer or colour-sergeant and medical officer. Frequently the Regular soldier went out for training and took part in manœuvres, and any serious ailment must come to the notice of the medical officer. But the Territorial soldier would only be for fifteen days in the year under the eye of the military authorities, and if any serious physical infirmity existed he would go to his own medical adviser, and knowledge of it would not come to the ears of the military authorities. Unless some special regulations were issued there was no reason to suppose that those who were medically unfit would ever be found out. He suggested that there should be a reasonably strict medical examination on enlistment and that there shall be another on embodiment. If a Territorial soldier missed two consecutive trainings of fifteen days each he should be compelled to undergo a medical examination. If a man missed the training for two years, the presumption would be that his absense was duo to some physical defect, and therefore an examination by a medical officer was necessary. He had put the case with moderation, but the right hon. Gentleman had gone very much further than he had done. Talking on the efficiency certificate of the Volunteers in the past, the right hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate, on Wednesday last, said— The certificate is of an extremely general character. A man might be old and he might be toothless. You produce the man and you get the capitation grant. Could there be a better justification for the Amendmant than that?

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert the words "Provided that no man shall be enlisted for any duties for which he is not physically fit.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)

Amendment proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*MR HALDANE

said it was true that he used the expression which the hon. Gentleman had referred to. He was then speaking of men who had got into the force, and who, remaining in it, had grown into the condition which he described. But it was not the case that with the Volunteers there was no examination. On the contrary, he believed that that examination was not altogether of an informidable character.

*MR. ASHLEY

You said that some of the men are old and toothless.

*Mr. HALDANE

Even the best of us became old and toothless. There was a test now, and it was intended in the future to have a test, possibly a bettor organised and more severe test than now. But the Government did not wish to lay down any such test of disability as that which the hon. Gentleman proposed. Who was to settle that a man was not physically fit? By what test of law was he to be adjudged incapable? He assumed that all the hon. Gentleman meant was to raise the question of having a standard. He agreed that there must be a standard. He did not at present tie himself as to what it was to be. There was a different standard for different corps in the Regular Army, and so there might be a different standard for different arms in the Territorial Force. Only experience could guide them as to what it should be.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT,

referring to the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, said they were delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped he might be able to remain during the rest of their discussions on the Army Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had fired off the old fallacies about insufficient medical inspection of Volunteers and about commanding officers accepting men in order to obtain the capitation grant. There was not a word of substance in the statement. Commanding officers of Volunteers desired for their own sake always to have the most effective and efficient men, because if they enrolled inferior and indifferent men they would receive a great reduction in the capitation grant. It should be remembered that the grant was not. 30s. but only 10s. for third-class shots and inefficient men. Volunteer recruits were not only medically examined on enrolment, but were subject to the inspection of the adjutant, who was a perfectly independent officer for purposes of recruiting, and the commanding officer could not accept men who did not comply with the War Office requirements. The recruits were always separately inspected by the inspecting officer, and if he found that the men were of insufficient physique—wholly apart from eyesight, on which the capitation grant absolutely depended—he would call upon the commanding officer and the adjutant to explain how these men of defective physique had been admitted. He knew there had been many allegations on this point, but they had never been proved in the slightest degree. There was a very much smaller number of rejections of men of the Volunteer force than of the Regulars in regard to fitness to take the field. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover when Under-Secretary stated that no less than 36½per cent. of the Regular Army—men who had been enlisted for regular service—were prior to the South African campaign rejected as unfit for field service and retained at home. No such percentage as that had occurred as regards the Volunteer force, and he regretted that his hon. friend had dished up this old chestnut.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

thanked his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield for his kind reference to himself. He welcomed the promise given by the Secretary of State for War that this question would not escape his notice. He did not altogether agree with his hon. and gallant friend; but he thought the mover of the Amendment went a little too far. What he asked was that the men who wore willing to leave the country should be fit to serve in time of war. Was it not going a great deal too far to say that those men were likely to be immune from those evils which overtook the men in the Regular Army? It was not fair. His hon. friend had no right to suppose that the Volunteers of the Territorial Army would be immune from the afflictions which often existed in the case of the Regular Army. His hon. friend had spoken of this question having been raised before. It had been raised before, but he would remind the Committee of the point on which inquiry was made. At the time it was urged by Members of the House that there should bean inquiry as to whether the Volunteers could be relied upon for foreign service and as to their fitness for service abroad. It was not quite a matter of physical standard as the hon. Gentleman had suggested. That had nothing to do with it. It was a question of physical fitness— whether they were of such sound health as to be able to undertake the rigours of a campaign. It did not really matter whether they fought at home or abroad. He had read an account of what took place when the French were fighting on their own soil and under conditions as favourable as ever could prevail in a country fighting for its existence. He had read nothing to lead him to suppose that a weak constitution was permissible in the case of troops fighting under such circumstances at home or anywhere else. He did not think it was unwise that the inquiry had been made. He repeated what ho had said before, that the Volunteer officers behaved in this matter with immense public spirit. The inquiry was to ascertain what was the state of preparation of the Volunteer Force, and whether they were physically fit from the point of view of active service. The Volunteer officers themselves in most cases led the way in undertaking the examination. There were 180,000 men examined. Let it not be be supposed that the examination was one which imposed a high standard, or that there was any question of demanding that they should come up to some impossible standard. The demand made was very light. The inquiry was to ascertain whether the men between the ages of nineteen and forty-live came up to the requirements laid down, not for the Regular Army, but in the Volunteer regulations—whether the men were of sound constitution and free from organic disease; and the result was that 29,000 men were reported by their own commanding officers as not coming within that category.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercrombie)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many were under age?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said he could not tell the hon. Gentleman at present; the present total was over 60,000, but the question did not seem relevant to this matter. The disqualifications wore in many cases strangulated hernia and heart disease. There were many cases of men serving who really ought not to be serving at all. Owing to the assistance of the capitation grant there wore very strong reasons for retaining these men in the force under the old conditions. It did not follow that because a man had strangulated hernia he was not a first-class shot. He might be able to earn the capitation grant, and there was, therefore, a motive for retaining unfit men in the force. If the whole of the Volunteer force had been examined no less than 40,000 men would have come within this category. Was it a desirable thing to delude themselves in a matter of this kind? He admitted that what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday put a different complexion on the matter to a certain extent. He had always believed, and he thought many of them had been led to believe, I hat among other purposes the Territorial Force would serve as a great reservoir for the expansion of the Regular Army in time of war. He had before him a speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who took the view which, he understood, was originally taken by the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that in any modern war a nation required an Army capable of very large expansion; and after citing the case of Japan, he went on to ask how we were to get those, larger numbers as quickly as possible in case of war, adding that the only way was to get them from the Volunteers, and that the Volunteers must be made to fool that their system was the national system, and that if this country was over attacked the nation would be able to use all its resources and united energies in defence of the Empire If that stood it was absolutely imperative that there should be a careful examination of the kind referred to in the Amendment. It was no answer to say that the Volunteers were examined when they joined. He thought that in some cases that, examination was somewhat perfunctory. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Regular Army, but if ho looked at the annual return he would find that tens of thousands of men after enlistment left the Army after two or throe years because they were unfit for active service. He thought that that was very deplorable, and he was glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman was continuing the number of medical rejections. That was the true way of avoiding the waste of the Army. But let it not be supposed that unsuitable men did not leave the Army. They did in thousands. Every military authority knew that it was not only useless but dangerous to take into the field men who were incapable of active exertion or of conforming to the modest requirements necessary in connection with inarching and manœuvres. He understood that the men were to be enlisted for a period of four years; and if they could not enforce any regular medical inspection every year during that term of four years, some steps should betaken on re-enlistment to see whether the men were physically fit. Was not that a reasonable demand? A very largo sum of money was being voted for the maintenance of the Volunteers, and unless they were capable of fighting there was no justification for maintaining them. They all knew that there were in the Volunteer force men who, although in good health when they joined the force, might not at the end of their four years service be able to undertake the hardships which might be imposed upon them. And yet the commanding officer could not get rid of such men so long as they complied with the other conditions of service regulations promulgated by the War Office, He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the indication he had given of his intention to put a very serious construction on this matter. If it was contemplated that these men were to serve abroad, then we must take the precaution, which every other country took, of ascertaining their fitness to go abroad. It was for that reason that he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend.

*MR. MCCRAE

said that on the previous day he had ventured to express his regret at the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, and he wished to congratulate him on his presence in the House to-day. He could not understand what was the object of the Amendment. At the present time no Volunteer was enrolled until he had been subjected to medical examination. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had issued the unfortunate circular as to medical examination, but to-day the right hon. Gentleman had tried to minimise the demands made therein. The objection of the Volunteers was that the test sought to be imposed on them was more severe than that applied to soldiers of the Line. What the right hon. Gentleman asked from the Volunteers was fitness for service abroad; but on his own showing to-day he asked for a test of fitness for men of nineteen years of age. But the right hon. Gentleman knew that for the Auxiliary Forces men were enlisted before they were nineteen years of age, and that if they were not recruits would not be obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had said that age did not come in at all. But age did come in, and that youths of seventeen should have the same physical fitness as men of nineteen years of age. The right hon. Gentleman had also skipped very lightly over the question of teeth, but many men were cast out on the question of indifferent teeth. The figures the right hon. Gentleman quoted were produced in rather an extraordinary way. Many commanding officers felt that the demand which the right hon. Gentleman was making on them was one which did not come within the terms of service of their men, who were enrolled for service at home, and not for active service abroad, and that therefore the demand was unconstitutional. When his regiment was in camp he himself put his men through the examination;

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. SirAlex.F Anstruther-Gray, Major Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt Hn. Sir H.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Arnold-Forster.Rt.Hn.HughO. Balcarres, Lord

but they had always in camp a very large number of young recruits, and therefore the comparison was very unfair. What happened? Many of these young men did not come up to the standard of the right hon. Gentleman. But what did they do? Two days after arrival in camp they were turned out with the Regular troops for a night march, which extended to fifteen miles, and thereafter engaged at half past three in the morning in field operations without a break, but not one man of his battalion fell out. And yet many of these young men did not come up to the standard of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. No Volunteer commanding officer would object to any reasonable standard of efficiency in so far as physical fitness was concerned, but he insisted that it should not be demanded that youths of seventeen should be subjected to the same test of physical fitness as to chest-measurement and height as men of nineteen years of age, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to impose.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

held that the principle of examination for physical fitness should be embodied in the Bill, and not in regulations to be made under the Bill. His argument was that this Act should become part of the history of the nation, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman objected to embodying in it the words of the Amendment. Presumably the regulations might be altered in many respects, but he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should have any objection to accept an Amendment which would secure for ever a standard of physical fitness in what was to be the greatest force for our home defence.

*MR. HALDANE

hoped that the Committee would come to a decision on this question, the discussion of which had been conducted in such a business-like fashion, in order that other important points might be fully considered.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 248. (Division List No. 203.)

Baldwin, Alfred Fardell, Sir T. George Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel
Balfour,Rt. Hn. A.J.(CityLond. Fell, Arthur Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fletcher, J. S. Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Baring, Capt. Hn.G.(Winchester Forster, Henry William Ruthsrford, John (Lancashire)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hay, Hon. Claude George Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles
Bowles, G. Stewart Helmsley. Viscount Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Boyle, Sir Edward Hervey, F.W.F.(BnryS.Edm'ds Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hill,SirClemont(Shrewsbury) Seddon, J.
Bull, Sir William James Hills, J. W. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Houston, Robert Paterson Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)
Butcher. Samuel Henry Hunt, Rowland Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Carlile, E. Hildred Kennaway.Rt.Hon.Sir John H. Starkey, John R.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Kenyon-Slaney.Rt. Hon.Col.W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Castlereagh, Viscount Kimber, Sir Henry Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)
Cave, George King.Sir HenrySeymour (Hull) Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC.W. Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham) Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Minor) Liddell, Henry Thorne, William
Chamberlain,Rt Hn. J. A.(Wore. Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-col. A. R. Thornton, Percy M.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Vincent, Sir Col. C. E. Howard
Courthope, G. Loyd Mildmay, Francis Bingham Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim,S.) Morpeth, Viscount Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig. Capt. James (Down, E.) Muntz, Sir Philip A. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Craik, Sir Henry O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon Parkes, Ebenezer Younger, George
Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Percy, Earl
Dancan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) Powell. Sir Francis Sharp TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Faber, George Denison (York) Randles, Sir John Scurrah Ashley and Sir Gilbert
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Ratcliff,.Major R. F. Parker.
NOES.
Abraham. William (Rhondda) Cameron, Robert Findlay, Alexander
Acland, Francis Dyke Carr-Gomm, H. W. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Agnew, George William Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Fowler, Rt. Hon. Fir Henry
Allen, A. Acland-(Christchurch) Cawley, Sir Frederick Fuller, John Michael F.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Chance, Frederick William Fullerton, Hugh
Armstrong. W. C. Heaton Cheetham, John Frederick Gardner. Col. Alan(Hereford,S.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Gill, A. H.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cleland, J. W. Gladstone. Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn
Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury, E.) Clough, William Glover, Thomas
Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset Clynes, J. R. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Coats. Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Gooch, George Peabody
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Grant, Corrie
Beck, A. Cecil Collins.Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras) Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bell, Richard Cooper, G. J. Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Bellairs, Carlyon Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Gulland, John W.
Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt Cory, Clifford John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Benn,W.(T'wrHamlets,S.Geo. Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Berridge, T. H. D. Cowan, W. H. Hall, Frederick
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex, Romf'rd Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Muldon) Crombie, John William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Billson, Alfred Crooks, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Bowerman, C. W. Crossley, William J Hart-Davies, T.
Brace, William Davies, David(Montgomery Co. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Bramsdon, T. A. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harvey,W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.
Branch, James Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Brigg, John Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Haworth, Arthur A.
Bright. J. A. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. I Hedges, A. Paget
Brocklehurst, W. B. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hemmerde, Edward George
Brodie, H. C. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brooke, Stopford Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall) Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Herbert, T. Anold(Wycombe)
Bryce, J. Annan Elibank, Master of Higham, John Sharp
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Erskine, David C. Hobart, Sir Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Essex, R. W. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Esslemont, George Birnie Holland, Sir William Henry
Buxton,Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles Evans, Samuel T. Holt, Richard Durning
Byles, William Pollard Everett, R. Lacey Hope. John Deans (Fife. West)
Cairns, Thomas Fenwick, Charles Horaiman, Emslie John
Hudson, Walter Myer, Horatio Spicer, Sir Albert
Illingworth, Percy H. Napier, T. B. Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Steadman, W. C.
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nicholson,Charles N(Doncast'r Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea Nussey, Thomas Willans Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Nuttall, Harry Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Summerbell, T.
Jowett, F. W. O'Grady, J. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Kearley, Hudson E. Parker, James (Halifax) Taylor, Theodore C.(Radclide)
King, Afred John (Knutsford) Partington, Oswald Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury
Laidlaw, Robert Paul, Herbert Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Lambert, George Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thomasson, Franklin
Lamont, Norman Philipps,J. Wynford(Pembroke Torrance, Sir A. M.
Layland-Barratt, Francis Pickersgill, Edward Hare Toulmin, George
Lehmann, R. C. Pirie Duncan V. Ure, Alexander
Levy, Maurice Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) Verney, F. W.
Lewis, John Herbert Price Robert John(Norfolk E.) Walters, John Tudor
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Walton.Sir John L.(Leeds,S.)
Lough, Thomas Pullar, Sir Robert Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Lupton, Arnold Radford, G. H. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Rainy, A. Rolland Wardle, George J.
Lyell, Charles Henry Raphael, Herbert H. Waring, Walter
Lynch, H. B. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Wason, Eugene( Clackmannan)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Rees, J. D. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Richards T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Waterlow, D. S.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robertson.SirG Scott(Bradf'rd Watt, Henry A.
Macpherson, J. T. Robertson J. M. (Tyneside) Weir, James Galloway
M'Callum, John M. Robson Sir William Snowdon White, George (Norfolk)
M'Crae, George Runciman, Walter White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Russell, T. W. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Whitehead, Rowland
M'Micking, Major G. Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)
Maddison, Frederick Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer
Mallet, Charles E. Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Wiles, Thomas
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Scott, A.H.(Ashton under-Lyne Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Marnham, F. J. Sears, J. E. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Massie, J. Seely, Major J. B. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Masterman, C. F. G. Shackleton, David James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Menzies, Walter Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Winfrey, R.
Molteno, Percy Alport Sherwell, Arthur James
Mond, A. Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Silcock, Thomas Ball Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Morse, L. L. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Soames, Arthur Wellesley
*THE CHAIRMAN

said he thought the next Amendment was consequential on a previous Amendment, which had not been carried.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

pointed out that though it might be consequential it afforded the only opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman what was the meaning of the new word "enlisted," and how it differed from the old word "enrolled." The word had been passed without discussion in a previous section and the Amendment could not be now pressed, but it was a word to which a good deal of objection was taken. It was a change or might be a change which might have some effect on the Volunteer Force. The Volunteers at present were enrolled, not enlisted, and ho desired to know how far it was intended to exclude, or how far it was intended to alter the civil character of the Volunteers. The last paragraph in page 3 of the Bill, which read— The recruiting for the Territorial Force both in peace and in war and defining the limits of recruiting areas, might give power to use the words enlist or enroll, and to continue to enlist as well as enroll. He would like to ask the right Gentleman to consider how far it was possible to make use of this wording in recruiting for the Auxiliary Force. He begged to move. Amendment proposed— In page 8, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'enlisted by such persons and,' and to insert the word 'enrolled.' "—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That these words be inserted."

*MR. HALDANE

said that the status of the territorial soldier under this Bill would not be exactly the same as the old-fashioned Volunteer. His status would be more akin to that of the Yeomanry, and came rather under the conditions attaching to the Militia than to the Volunteers. The reason why "enrolled" had not been chosen was because it was a term reserved for the somewhat loose state of things appropriate at the time when the Volunteer Force was created, and with the idea that the "enrolled" citizens should come forth on a proper signal being given. That was a condition which was very different from that to which the Volunteer Force now aspired; and therefore the word "enlisted" had been chosen as being more appropriate to the character of the force in these days.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he would not press the point. But it came within the right hon. Gentleman's powers to vary the terms in certain cases. Only the other day, the right hon. Gentleman had said he would vary the terms of the Army name so that the regiments and battalions might be known as Volunteers and not by any new names, and therefore he ventured to press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the word "enrolled" should be retained for the second line of Volunteers, as there was a very great predjudice in many quarters against the words "Army" and "enlistment."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASHLEY

said the Amendment he now moved was to put right what he believed to be a mistake in the drafting of the Bill. According to the Bill a man could only enlist for general county service. As the Bill was drawn a man in, say, Hampshire could only go and enlist in the Hampshire force. He could not specify a particular regiment in which he desired to enlist. That seemed to him an extraordinary position to take up when in the Regular Army a man could enlist in a particular regiment, and in the Volunteers in a particular company. He only moved this Amendment formally lost the Amendment a lit tic lower down, which the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to accept, was not in order. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 17, after the word 'enlisted,' to insert the word "for a particular corps or."—(Mr. Ashley).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

*MR. HALDANE

said the form of this clause was taken from the old Militia Acts, He quite agreed that it was not quite the proper form, and if the hon. Member would withdraw this Amendment and move a subsequent Amendment of which he had given notice he would accept it.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that if the Government accepted the subsequent Amendment that would be for particular corps. Before that was done the Committee ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by corps. He was probably aware that there was very great dissatisfaction in the Army at one time when a corps was interpreted to mean a particular body.

*MR. HALDANE

said in Section 190 of the Army Act there were two distinct definitions of the words corps. One was in sub-section 15 (a), and was open to the criticism just made, and the other was in sub-section 15 (b), and related entirely to the Auxiliary Forces. That was the definition they proposed to adopt, and under that definition a corps might consist of one battalion or two or three associated battalions of Auxiliary Forces. He could not make a complete plan.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that under that definition it would be in the power of the Crown to say that anything which they thought convenient was a corps. What he thought his hon. friend wanted to ensure was that it should be possible to enlist in a regiment or a battalion. The right hon. Gentleman might not be able to make a complete plan, but he could limit establishments so as to prevent one regiment being swollen and another being starred. He could say that a regiment should contain so many and no more. It was not right that the Government should have power to call anything they liked a corps.

MR. ASHLEY

said that though the Committee might be satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman they had no guarantee that in the new rules mentioned there might not be one changing the whole condition. In the Middlesex County Association area there were twenty-seven battalions. Would they all form one corps? If so, and the Territorial soldier was to be changed about from one body to another, he would be no better off if the Amendment was passed than he was before.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought the right hon. Gentleman would clear up the whole matter if he would tell the Committee what was not a corps.

*Mr. HALDANE

said that what was contemplated as a corps was a group of battalions. The 1st and 2nd Norfolks, with the Volunteer and Militia battalions, would form a corps in virtue of the definition in the Army Act. A man enlisting for a corps such as that could not be transferred to another corps, from one body defined by Royal warrant to another body so defined. In the Regulars a man could be transferred from battalion to battalion of the regiment to which he belonged. It was necessary when a particular battalion was cut up in war time, for instance. The utmost concession which the Government could make would be that a man might insist on serving in a particular corps, but not in the one particular battalion of the corps which he joined.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said it might be that he was the only Member of the House who did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply; but what he submitted was that a person wanted to know when he had enlisted whether he was liable to be transferred. For instance, the Rifle Brigade and the 60th, each had eight, ten or twelve battalions—some in Ireland, some in England, and some in Scotland. They wore attached battalions, and came exactly within the definition; and what he understood his right hon. friend wanted to know was whether a person, having enlisted in the Territorial Army for a battalion—say in the.North Riding of Yorkshire—was liable, against his own will, to be transferred, either in time of peace or in time of war, to another battalion in some other part of Yorkshire, though the limitation was not at present confined to a single county. They wanted to know a little more about what was intended. He could quite understand, and did not for a moment dispute, that there might be strong military reasons for making a transfer of that kind desirable, but if that was the view of the War Office they ought to know it. He thought that transfer might be very useful in time of war, but it would be profoundly unpopular in time of peace. Therefore, they ought to know a little more than what was contained in the definition which the right hon. Gentleman had read. He did not believe that any Volunteer would be one penny the wiser after he had read it twenty times. What the Volunteer wanted to know was whether he enlisted into the regiment which he named, or some other regiment to be created in the future—some corps of which he nothing at all One example would bring this matter home. He heard the other day of two corps, one of which was enlisting more men than the other. The commanding officer of one of them told him that, much to his regret, his corps was losing men because in a neighbouring corps the men were being paid as much as 5s., and even more, in order to got them, with the result that they were getting men to enlist who otherwise would have enlisted in his corps. What that indicated was that there was very great reluctance on the part of different corps to give up their men under any circumstances, whether in peace or war. He would again ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them what was a corps at the present moment. They ought to know how it was this definition came to be used, and an answer might bring them nearer to a solution than they were at the present time.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said they were getting into irregularity. An Amendment had been moved by the hon. Member for Blackpool, and ho understood that he was willing to withdraw it because another of his later on was likely to be accepted. If this Amendment were withdrawn he did not see why another Amendment should not be proposed raising the question of what the Government meant by the clause as it stood in reference to enlistment.

MR. ASHLEY

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WYNDHAM

moved, for the purpose of eliciting a further statement from the Secretary of State for War, an Amendment providing that a man should be enlisted "in any regiment or battalion" in a county for which an association had been established. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the word "corps" might mean two battalions of Regular infantry, a Militia battalion and a Volunteer battalion. It might mean that now, but surely it would not mean that if this Bill passed into law. Many of them desired to see those three stages kept, but this Bill abolished them. If he followed the right hon. Gentleman's intention that was not the state of affairs which he wished to create. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman said ho meant by the word "corps" several battalions of the Territorial Force presumably in one county. That would not satisfy his hon. friend behind him, and certainly did not satisfy himself. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of transfer and had pointed out that in time of war they transferred men in the Regular Army from one battalion to another. That might be desirable in time of war, but the question which the Committee had before them was the question of enlisting the men. As the Bill stood, without any Amendment, they could enlist for a county; that was to say, that if a roan went to the recruiting office and wished to enlist it was in the power of the authorities to post him, so to speak, to any battalion in the county. They objected to that. What they held was that the man should be able to enlist in this regiment of Yeomanry or cavalry or that battalion of infantry. He was at a loss to conceive on what grounds the right hon. Gentleman refused the Amendment when ho had it in his power to say that in the case of a popular regiment its establishment should not exceed 1,500, and that an unpopular regiment should not be less than 300. He thought it was legitimate to limit or diminish the establishment of a regiment and that where a regiment was persistently weak to say that the regiment must be disbanded. The right hon. Gentleman had these two weapons, and; they ought to be ample to enable him to form the purely voluntary force which he was trying to make.

*MR. HALDANE

said that as a layman he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman speaking as a soldier, and he was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not had in mind that when a man enlisted for the regiment he enlisted for the corps and was posted to the unit. The analogy which they had got here was the exact analogy which obtained everywhere. They never did enlist for the unit. In the Yeomanry, for instance, or any other force, they never did enlist for the unit; they enlisted for the corps and were posted to the unit. The corps in the future would be the same as the corps constituted under the Army Act. They would consist of groups of battalions. For instance, they would be on a county basis, and enlistment would be by corps. The Bill provided that a man could not be transferred from one corps to another without his consent. No doubt recruits would be posted to the units to which they asked to be posted. That was intended to be done, and it was the practice in the Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman had raised this point to have the matter elucidated, but he could not expect him to accept the Amendment, which would be wholly inconsistent with the structure of the Bill.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that a recruit was surely posted to his particular unit now—that was his particular corps. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman meant?

*MR. HALDANE

said ho had explained that the man enlisted for the corps.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that for many years they had enlisted, and did so now, for the 9th Lancers, the 17th Lancers, and the 8th or 10th Hussars, and he know that men in many cases enlisted for a particular regiment; but the War Office had made an arrangement altering that state of things, and very much against the will of the officers and many of the men of cavalry regiments, those cavalry regiments had been turned into a corps. It was quite a mistake to suppose that enlisting for a regiment was unknown in the Army. For many years, for a hundred years at least, it had been the universal rule. That had been the constant and uniform practice in the Army for many years. What they wanted to know was, which practice was to prevail; was a man to enlist for a regiment, or for a number of regiments?

THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.)

said that if a man enlisted into the Territorial Force under the County Association, say, of Norfolk, he would enlist for the part governed by that Association, and he could not be shifted out of that county against his will. He therefore could not be separated from the corps for which he had enlisted—namely, the corps of the Territorial Force belonging to the Norfolk regiment.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said the Under-Secretary for India was full of good intentions, but he had not conveyed to his mind any clear idea of the intentions of the Government as regards this Territorial Force. They were very anxious about the success of this new force. The right hon. Gentleman had no experience either of the force or of the Auxiliary Forces, except that he had distributed a few prizes, and he really must listen to those who had had experience. Anyone who knew anything of the Auxiliary Forces knew perfectly well that they would not get a single man if they enlisted for general service. If they wanted to get these men the Government ought to listen to practical experience in the matter. The Under-Secretary for India said he had dealt with the case, but that was not so, and he did not appear to understand the elements of the voluntary force. He had told them what would happen in the various regiments, and he had mixed them up. If the Under-Secretary would consult his hon. friend sitting behind him, who had served in one of the Metropolitan regiments, he would find out that he was absolutely wrong in regard to what he had said about those regiments. Did anybody suppose for a moment that the class of men who were likely to form the Territorial Force were going to join it for general service? A man generally joined a Volunteer regiment because he happened to be connected with it by tradition. Probably he knew the Colonel and the officers, and that was the particular regiment ho was prepared to give voluntary service to, and he would not be prepared to give service to an unspecified regiment in some distant part. The right hon. Gentleman refused Amendments, and would not listen to the views of those who had had experience; under those circumstances was it likely that the Territorial Force would prove to be the success he desired? The men wished to join some definite regiment, and if they persisted in allowing a man to enlist for general county service he was afraid they would not get a single man to join.

*MR. HALDANE

said they did not wish to enlist the new Territorial soldier for general service, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. They wished to enlist a man for his corps and to post him to the battalion he chose, but, above all things, what they wished to stick to was accurate language in the Bill. Accurate language demanded that they should say that a man enlisted for a corps and was posted for the unit which was in that corps. Of course, in framing the corps for the purpose of the Territorial Force they would define the units to be associated in such a fashion as would be convenient for the purpose of enlistment and for the purpose of posting; but no idea was more remote from the mind of the Government than that a man should be enlisted for general service and posted anywhere against his will.

LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)

Having posted a man, will it be in the power of the authorities to transfer him to another battalion in the same county?

*MR. HALDANE

They never do in time of peace. In time of war such a power is considered necessary in all well-regulated military organisations.

MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)

suggested that the difficulty might be met if the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment to add at the end of the clause some such words as these:—"Provided always that every man shall be posted to the unit in which he desires to serve, and shall not be transferred there from in time of peace without his consent." It applied to men of all classes. Suppose a man residing in Portsmouth enlisted in the Hampshire Infantry and wished to serve at Portsmouth, if it were possible to transfer him against his will to Bournemouth and to force him to take his drills there and run the risk of losing his employment at Portsmouth, he would probably not join the force.

*MR. HALDANE

said his hon. and gallant friend had expressed what he had himself said, and if it would be any comfort to the Committee to have it put in words," he had no objection to doing so. He should prefer to bring up the exact words on the Report stage. He would undertake to bring up an Amendment which would give effect to the sense of his hon. and gallant friend's suggestion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had taken this course. He thought it was the right course, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that there would be a Report stage for this Bill.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in view of what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. He understood that what had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division would be incorporated in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. McCRAE

moved to amend Sub section (b) in order to provide that enlistment should be "for a period not less than four years." He said that under the clause as drafted, after the first three years, the commanding officer would have to ask each man specifically whether he wished to re-engage, and if he reengaged he would have to be re-sworn. That would have a disturbing effect. At the present time a Volunteer served for three years, and could remain for such length of time as he liked, subject to certain notice of his intention to retire. He was quite sure that the provisions in the clause practically making an annual re engagement necessary after the first three years, would en- courage men to resign rather than to continue in the service. Human nature was human nature, and they had an example of what this system led to in the three years' enlistment of Mr. Brodrick. At the end of the three years the soldier was to have an opportunity of re-engaging, and the consequence was that hardly a man after the three years did reengage. He felt that if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the clause as at present drafted he would put a great obstacle in the way of maintaining the numbers in the different battalions. He could not understand why the words which he proposed to omit should have been introduced. It seemed to be entirely a piece of red tape. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter. It was most essential that some modification should be made in the clause He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, lines 21 and 22, to leave out the words, 'such a period as may be prescribed, not exceeding,' and to insert the words, 'a period of not less than.' "—(Mr. McCrae.)

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

*MR. HALDANE

said his hon. and gallant friend's proposal was inconsistent with the object of the Bill. They were aiming at something much more thorough going than the Volunteer Force as at present constituted. They wished to make the position of the Territorial soldier more akin to that of the Regular soldier, and they had taken as their type the Yeomanry. The responsibility of the Territorial soldier would be greater than that of the Volunteer. Therefore they thought it right that a man should know at the end of his time that he was entitled to his discharge, and that it should be open to him to say whether he would go on or not. Moreover, it was also proposed that a man should be able to go into a Reserve, in which he would get less training, but would still be available for rejoining his battalion in case of war. He did not share his hon. and gallant friend's fears.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would like to adduce one practical reason against the Amendment. In the Auxiliary Forces there was sometimes a difficulty as to what should be done with a non-commissioned officer who had committed no fault, although he was not the best man for the post. While he might be damaging the troops, they could not get rid of him without causing a feeling of injustice. But they could without hurting his feelings say that they were not going to accept his re-engagement. On that ground he was against the Amendment.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. He thought what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had great force in it. The less formality proposed in connection with the Territorial Army the better chance of its success. He could not agree with the statement that there was the slightest difficulty in getting rid of a non commissioned officer who was not fit for his post. They could get rid of him by a friendly word without hurting his feelings. The regulation was perfectly clear as to the age limit. The maximum age limit, which was never departed from in the Volunteers, was fifty-five, and j the rule for officers was fifty-eight.

AN HON. MEMBER

After thirty-eight years service.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said that the ordinary Volunteer could not serve beyond fifty-five years of age. Did the hon. Gentleman think that a man could go on serving till the day of judgment? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept the advice of the hon. Member behind him not to hamper the Territorial Army with all these restrictions, which seemed to be dictated by a desire to make it an impossible force.

*MR. MCCRAE

said he was very sorry that his right hon. friend had not accepted his Amendment, which was intended to perfect the machinery of the Bill. But as both Front Benches were against it, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)

moved an Amendment providing that a man who had served his four years' term should be able to re-engage from year to year rather than for a further period of four years. From practical experience he was sure there would be great difficulty about a re-engagement for four years, or for any period of a definite character beyond one year. A man was always pleased when he got to the end of the period of three or four years for which ho had enrolled; and would not re-engage except from year to year. He thought it was particularly important that this question should be considered, because these old soldiers—he did not mean old men, but soldiers of experience—ought to be kept if possible, as they stiffened and strengthened the company, and nothing should be done to discourage them from re-engagement from year to year. Moreover, the system of re-engagement from year to year facilitated the getting rid of non-commissioned officers who were doing no good. It would be very easy to draw up a form of oath which would obviate re-attestation on re-engagement for one year. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 24, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'and' in line 2", and insert the words 'may, on the conclusion of his engagement, be reengaged from year to year.' "—(Mr. Courthope.)

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

*MR. HALDANE

said that the hon. Member had not noticed that the words of the clause permitted what he desired to be done. These words were that every man enlisted under this part of the Act "shall be enlisted to serve for such a period as may be prescribed, not exceeding four years, reckoned from the date of his attestation." There was nothing to prevent a man re-engaging from year to year, or for two years. He wished, however, to leave the period of re-engagement open. If a man would re-engage for a period of four years, he was far more valuable as a reserve in making their mobilisation arrangements. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would deprive the Government of that latitude, and for that reason they wished to keep the clause as it stood.

COLONEL, E. WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)

thought the words of the Amendment would be more useful than the words of the clause as it stood.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)

said after their first period of service they would not get men to reengage for more than a year, and it would be most disastrous if the men were compelled to re-engage for four years. In the Yeomanry they had had experience of re-engagements from year to year, and they had no difficulty in getting the men to do so, if they had not to sign a paper, and take the oath again. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, which he thought would be a safeguard.

MR. WYNDHAM

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not maintain the attitude he had taken in regard to the Amendment. He thought it was for Parliament to decide what was the best period for re-engagement. With all due respect to the Army Council, he did not think the Council wore in a position to know what was best for each member of the Territorial Force. If there was a rule laid down that four years should be the period of re-engagement, the country would lose the services of a great many men whom it was desirable to retain, while a great many would be retained in the force for four years of whom it was better to get rid. The safe plan ought to be adopted of re-engagement for one year, leaving the matter to the commanding officer.

MR. COURTHOPE

said he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that this point in the Bill was the one of which the rank and file in the Volunteers were afraid. There were a great many men in the Volunteers who hoped to go on serving their country for a long time, and this was the one thing which they had picked out of the Bill of which they went in fear. He therefore did not think that they would be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that power was taken to make regulations.

*MR. HALDANE

said that power was taken to make regulations prescribing an alternative period, and they would be made before the men were asked to serve under them.

COLONEL R. WILLIAMS

did not think that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy the Volunteers. They did not want to come under the Act until they knew what its conditions were. They were willing to serve for four years, but they wanted at the end of that period to go on from year to year, and they did not want one Army Council to say that they should go on for four years, another to say they should go on for three, another two, and another one year. This was a very important matter, and before the Bill was passed they ought to know what the arrangements were to be.

*MR. HALDANE

said the regulations would be published. Alterations in them might be required after a time due to altered social conditions or other circumstances, and he thought it would be an act of unwisdom to tie the hands of the War Office so as to prevent them from making a change.

MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)

urged the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, as he thought the Amendment would be desirable.

MR. WYNDHAM

assured the right hon. Gentleman that all that had been said about the feeling of the Volunteers was equally true of the Yeomanry in this matter. Was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman a consistent one in regard to the penalties to be inflicted on a man leaving before his four years had expired? Had the right hon. Gentleman not been disposed to be too lenient, and would it not be better that a man should come in for four years and look that far ahead and then go on from year to year? There were a number of reasons which might prevent a man after four years from binding himself in advance for a longer period than a year, and he could not see what was the use of the right hon. Gentleman's insisting upon four years when those who had knowledge and were interested in the Auxiliary Forces would tell him that he would get more men under a year to year system than by binding them for four years.

*COLONEL HERBERT (Monmouth shire, S.)

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should on Report bring up I the clause in such a form that it would allow of re-enlistment for four years or alternatively from year to year. That was what hon. Gentlemen wished, and he thought there would be a great advantage in having that elasticity. If a man had served four years he was undoubtedly worth keeping, and therefore they should make the regulations so elastic that they would induce him to stay on.

MR. ACLAND (Yorkshire, Richmond)

said the provision in the Yeomanry Act was in the exact words of the clause as proposed by his right hon. friend and re-enlistments under that Act were j from year to year. He had in his hand the Yeomanry form of declaration for re-enlistment, and it was simply a declaration in regard to service from year to year for three years, and that was done in exactly the same words as were proposed in this Bill; so that there need not be any fear that the Yeomanry, at all events, would have their conditions of service altered in any way.

MR. ASHLEY

said the speech of the hon. Gentleman afforded the strongest reason for importing into the Bill some such words as were suggested. Similar words had acted very excellently in the case of the Yeomanry, and they were therefore desirous of having the conditions of re-enlistment of that force extended to the Territorial Army. The hon. Member had said that the Yeomanry need not be afraid that their conditions of service would be altered; but surely, under the Bill as it at present stood, the regulations might be changed. As they found something which seemed to meet the case of the Yeomanry, and was satisfactory to the Army Council and the Government, why should they not embody it in the Bill?

*MR. HALDANE

said he would further consider the matter before the Report stage. As at present advised, he thought the Yeomanry form the best, but if he could express the substance of the desire expressed by the Committee he would do so. He did not want to tie his hands, however, and it was understood that a man had the option of choosing his period of service.

MR. COURTHOPE

suggested that ho should withdraw the Amendment and move the one suggested by the hon. Member for Monmouth to insert the words "or alternatively from year to year." If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept that he would immediately save the time of the Committee by withdrawing his Amendment.

*MR. HALDANE

was not sure that he could accept that, and thought it was better to leave the matter over. He would consider the matter between this and the Report stage. It was not possible to give an undertaking, but if he could arrive at the substance of what the Committee wished he would do it. He did not, however, want to tie his hands in regard to words which might turn out to be wrong.

MR. WYNDHAM

asked whether they were to understand that a man under the control of the Army Council was to have the option of re-engaging.

*MR. HALDANE

said the man would have the option, but for what periods he did not know. He did not quite see how he could work it, but it was understood that a man was to have the option; but ho wanted the latitude to have these different periods. The matter was not so easy as it looked, but he would take time to consider it.

MR. COURTHOPE

asked whether one of the alternative periods of service would be from year to year.

Mr. HALDANE

was understood to assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

moved to omit from sub-section (c) the words "provided that a soldier on re-engagement should make the prescribed declaration before a Justice of the Peace or an officer. "He thought this was an Amendment which the Secretary of State might easily accept. There was no advantage in repeated declarations on oath before a Justice of the Peace. The man had been sworn in, and that was quite sufficient to carry him to the end of his service, and there was no use in lugging him off' to the police court or the county court to make him take the oath again.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 27, to leave out from the word ' term' to the end of subsection."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

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

MR. ACLAND

pointed out that a man in the Territorial Force would not enlist for an indefinite but for a definite period, and therefore the declaration he made on taking the oath and attesting for the first time could not be indefinitely extended to cover the whole period for which he might serve, although it might cover the period for which he enlisted. That was the whole point, and to provide for a reattestation was not lugging a man before a police or county court, because he could at any time go through the proceeding before an officer of his own unit. That could be done at any time during his last term of service, when the men were in camp and the junior subaltern came round to their tents. It was not a difficult or complicated formality, and nothing was more simple. It was desirable in order that a man should be made to think, and not drift on from year to year as many men wore allowed to do. The man was engaged for a definite period, and his service should not be allowed to extend beyond that period without a formality of this nature, which was of the simplest kind.

MR. ASHLEY

said that the Yeomanry were at present re-engaged without all these formalities, and if it was possible in the case of the Yeomanry why should it not be possible in the case of the Territorial Army,

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said it had been stated that there was no fresh declaration from year to year.

*MR. HALDANE

said he had a copy of the declaration. The arrangement was that when the Imperial Yeoman reengaged he re-engaged for the period of— whatever it might be—and then came the declaration— I do declare that I will faithfully serve. His Majesty, his heirs, and successors for a further period of one year from the end of ray current term of engagement in the Imperial Yeomanry in any part of the United Kingdom for the defence of the same provided my services should so long be required.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said it was not worth pressing, but he might say that anything in the way of unnecessary formalities would prevent, in many cases, men re-engaging, and that if they chose to insist on these formalities they must take the responsibility of so doing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

moved to omit the sub-section providing for the payment of a sum not exceeding £5 on discharge by the Territorial soldier. He objected to the man who voluntarily undertook the defence of his country being fined. If a £5 fine had boon inflicted on a man who did not enlist, that would have been a sensible provision. Judge Bryn Roberts, for many years a well-known Member of the House, once stated that for every man killed in battle he would have one civilian executed—that that, in his opinion, would be the best way of preserving peace. Ho certainly thought that the man who did not enlist should be fined. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, to omit lines 40 and 41."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

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

*MR. HALDANE

said he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have made this Motion, for nobody knew better that the subsection introduced nothing which was not an existing practice in Volunteer corps. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew that when a man joined a corps it took security from him that if he left he should give back some part of the expense incurred in his training. Every man who joined was bound by the rules of the corps, and a scale was usually drawn up under which, if a man who had only boon a year in the corps loft it, he had to pay more than the man who had served longer, because the loss was greater. The payment was by way of compensation to the public for the money spent on the man's training. No scale had been put in here, because it required a good deal of thinking out, but it was proposed to make a scale by regulation, under which a little only would be taken from the man who had served a long time, and more from the man who had served only a short time—in other words, to carry out a system which was familiar to Volunteer corps to-day. Power would, however, be taken to remit or reduce the payment in special circumstances. Whore, for instance, a man had to leave the force for family or other good reasons, or where he had to remove from one part of the country to another, it would be very hard on him to be called on to pay.

LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said this was a most important point when read in conjunction with the rest of the clause, it being subsequently provided that a man who was disobedient or misconducted himself was to be discharged. Hence the sub-section placed a premium on disobedience, because if a man was hard up—and there were many who would join the Territorial Force to whom £5, or even £2, would be a consideration—he would have an easy way of getting out of paying by not doing what he was told. If the Territorial Force was to be a useful force it was essential that there should be some discipline; and while he agreed with a man being fined for leaving before his term had finished, he also thought the right hon. Gentleman must make it clear that when a man was discharged for disobedience, the corps should have some claim to getting the fine out of him.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said the payment now made under the civil contract between the commanding officer and the man was not for the expense of training, but to recoup the cost of the uniform supplied to him. The man was bound to serve a certain time or pay a certain sum of money, but the contract was a very elastic one, and it was made with the commanding officer, a man the Volunteer knew and had confidence in. To leave the matter to the Army Council or Territorial Association was quite a different thing. If it were left to the right hon. Gentleman.himself, he would have no objection, but they all knew he was here to-day and gone to-morrow and they could not expect to have a successor so genial and able.

COLONEL R. WILLIAMS

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; he was quite certain, from what he knew of Volunteers, that they must have some sort of pecuniary fines.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 40, to leave out the words' His Majesty,' and insert the words, 'the association for the county for which he was enlisted.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)

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

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

pointed out that it was under the commanding officer of the corps that the Volunteer was enrolled. The county association had no individual knowledge of him, and probably it would only meet once in six months. If the man paid the £5, thy unit to which ho belonged ought to have the money.

MR. HALDANE

said under the Bill the county association would manage all the business, and they should have the cash with which to do it.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

thought the money ought to go to the particular unit to which the man belonged. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to merge all these battalions into the entity of the County Association. The County Association in the West Riding might have twenty or thirty battalions; the County Association of London would have twenty-seven. He thought the money from these fines ought to be credited to the individual unit from which the men resigned.

VISCOUNT VALENTIA (Oxford)

said that in the case of the Yeomanry and Militia the fines invariably went to the regimental coffers, and he was quite sure that it would be to the advantage of the various regiments that the same system should obtain in the Territorial Army. If a man broke his engagement the fine which he paid ought to go to the advantage of the unit to which he belonged rather than to the association.

MR. ACLAND

said the Bill proposed to reform the system of administration, and in the Territorial Army, instead of the commanding officers being responsible for the administration, it would be the County Association. The loss would not be to the particular corps when a man left, but to the association, and, therefore, the money to make good that loss should go to the association. The association which had to provide the money for grants had a right to receive the money paid in fines.

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

*MR. ASHLEY

moved to leave out the words 'five pounds,' and insert the words ' in any particular case the sum there for specified in the schedule to the Act.' It had been decided, ho said, that a fine should be levied, and they had to consider what the amount of the fine should be. He had placed an Amendment to the schedule on the Paper to substitute for the fine of £5 a sliding scale. If a man left within one year after his attestation, he should be liable to a fine of £4; if within two years, £3; if after two years and within throe, £2 if after three years or any time after he had re-engaged (they knew that there was to be re-engagement, from year to year), £1. He thought that was common sense, as surely a man who had seen three years service to the State ought to be able to leave under easier circumstances than the man who left after three, six, or nine months service. The man who left so soon had put the State to considerable expense and trouble. The man who had served five or six or ten years ought to be able to go out on very easy terms. Therefore, on the ground of justice ho asked the Committee to consider his proposal, which made a difference between the man who had served a short time and the man who had served for a considerable length of time. With a sliding scale of fines, men would be induced probably to stay on longer with the corps in order to reduce the amount of the fine to be paid; it would in reality act as a sort of bonus to continue with the Territorial Army. If the schedule which ho suggested were put in the Bill, it would act as a guide | to the local associations as to what scale of fines they should exact. After all, it was purely permissive; they had the power to remit fines altogether or partially. By his plan, they would get uniformity all over the country. The County Associations would turn to the Act, see what Parliament considered to be approximately the right amount, and then take action upon it. If they simply put £5 in the Bill, they might have one County Association fining practically up to the limit, and over the border another County Association imposing practically no fine at all. That was not at all a sound system, and it might create bad feeling between the men of one County Association and the men of another. He thought that was very much to be deprecated. With regard to the sliding scale which he suggested, he had consulted a number of Volunteer officers in reference to it, and it was framed on the advice they had given from their practical experience. What he urged was that the man who had served four, five, six, or ten years should not be liable to be fined to the same extent as a man who had only served six months.

Amendment proposed— ''In page 8, line 41, to leave out the words, 'five pounds,' and to insert the words, 'in any particular case the sum there for specified in the Schedule to the Act' "— (Mr. Ashley.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'five pounds' stand part of the clause."

*MR. HALDANE

said this was a matter which had to be dealt with by regulations. There were different arms and different corps, which stood on a different footing. For instance, some of the corps required higher training. In the Clyde Corps of Engineers the fine of £5 always remained £5, whether the time was long or short, because the training was such a very important matter. They took the view that the longer a man was trained, the greater was his value to the State. Or, they might take the instance of the cost of training cavalry, which was greater than that of training infantry. They had to distinguish between these j cases and it was essentially a matter to be | dealt with by regulation and not by a rigid schedule such as the hon. Member would put into the Bill. In the circumstances, he preferred that the matter should be dealt with by regulation rather than by putting anything into the Bill.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

thought there was good sense in what the Secretary for War had said, that the matter should be dealt with by regulation and not by the Bill. If a schedule were put into the Bill' it could not be altered except by legislation. He pointed out that the money was paid not in respect of training but with regard to clothing. That was a comparatively small matter. He noticed that the Secretary for War spoke of the fine as a recompense for the cost of training; but that was not so; it was a reimbursement for the cost of providing a man with a uniform, and the fine should in amount recognise that the value of the uniform became less year by year. It was essential that there should be a sliding scale.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

said the remarks made by the Secretary for War upon this point seemed to be at variance with the attitude he took up yesterday. Was the scale to be prescribed by the association, or by regulations issued by the War Office, or by the House of Commons each year? How could anyone who wished to join the Territorial Force ascertain under what scale ho was enlisting? He would also like to know if that scale could be altered at a moment's notice. The Amendment laid down exactly what a man would have to pay if he desired to resign. He knew of nothing more injurious than a system which compelled men to remain in a force when they would prefer to pay something in order to be released from their undertaking. Many hon. Members who had spoken had pointed out the difficulty which would be experienced under this scheme of retaining in the Territorial Force men of the Militia class. Those were just the kind of men who would find it difficult to pay a heavy fine. If the Territorial Force was to be recruited from the old Militia class of men—who must necessarily from the backbone of any such schome— it was absolutely necessary to make the conditions to suit that class. Those men were drawn mostly from the working classes and they were not prepared to pay such a large fee as would be exacted by the Secretary of State for War. He intended to support the Amendment.

COLONEL HERBERT

hoped that in the framing of regulations the principle of a sliding scale in proportion to length of service would be accepted. He had on the Paper a similar Amendment to that which had been moved by the hon. Member for Blackpool, and ho was in entire agreement with him upon the point. He hoped the Secretary of State for War or the Financial Secretary to the War Office would be prepared to announce that they accepted the proposal. There certainly ought to be a sliding scale under which every man would know what he would be called upon to pay if he wanted to leave the corps.

LORD BALCARRES

supported the proposal for a scale in lieu of a lump sum, and reminded the Committee that a man would be under further penalty if he did not deliver up his equipment in good condition. The schedule would not deprive the association of discretion, but it would give the local authority an indication of the intention of Parliament. He did not think that the Secretary for War should be altogether a dictator by these regulations. Parliament should not divest itself of responsibility in this important matter. The question had aroused considerable interest amongst Volunteers. He differed entirely from his hon. friend who said that the fine was intended to recoup the loss in training. He did not look at it from that point of view at all. He thought the fine was intended as a deterrent both on thoughtless enlistment and on capricious leaving of a corps. While he thought some fine was right and necessary, ho strongly disapproved of its being put down at £5 subject to remission. A man who might commit the military offence of leaving a corps without proper or adequate notice would not be comforted by the knowledge that the county association, or the officer appointed by the association, would be entitled to reduce the sum to a nominal figure—say, a halfpenny. If £5 were put in the Bill, that would be taken as the indication given by the Government of what the line was to be. The amount was too large. He could give scores of cases in which men in mining counties had been obliged to leave their regiments on account of having to go to other districts for work. If a man who had to migrate in order to follow his trade was to be subject to a fine of £5, it seemed to him that it would put a certain check on the man's anxiety to enlist in a corps. He did not believe the knowledge that there were restrictions and exemptions would bring particular comfort to that man. He believed that nine out of ten Volunteers, if asked what was the condition on which they might leave a corps, would say that it was a fine of £b. He was strongly in favour of a sliding scale, but he was not wedded to the figures in' the scale which had boon submitted.

COLONEL R. WILLIAMS

believed the fine of £5 would frighten young men, especially in the agricultural districts, from joining the Volunteers. It would be no use telling a man that the tine would be very much less. It would be very difficult to get it out of his head that the fine was £5. He suggested that an Amendment might be introduced providing that the fine should be such sum as was prescribed in a sliding scale under which the maximum should not exceed £4. Ho would like to have the sliding scale in the Bill.

MR. MADDISON

thought they were all agreed in accepting the principle of a sliding scale. What they should consider was how it was to be carried out. There were some hon. Members who thought it should go in to the Bill, and others who wished it to go in to the rules. It appeared to him that if it were put in the Bill, they could not provide for the differences between the various corps which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. If it were put in the schedule, they could make allowance for those differences.

MR. ASHLEY

said the local associations would consider that. They could reduce the fine to a shilling.

MR. MADDISON

said he could not help feeling that there would be more freedom if the various corps were allowed to make their own regulations.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe)

said it seemed to him that the Government were proposing something which would be a deterrent to young men joining the Volunteers. They were often told that the only alternative to this Bill was conscription. If the effect of this proposal would be to deter people from coming in, he thought it would be a mistake to agree to it. If the proposed force was to be a purely Volunteer Army, surely there should be nothing put in which would change the present system so far as the fine was concerned. Whatever regulations now existed with regard to Volunteers joining or leaving should be retained without change. If they emoted that the fine for leaving was to be £5, it would deter young men of sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen from joining. He urged that they should not put a condition in the Bill which would prevent men from coining in, and thereby enable the Government to say, if the scheme failed, that they must adopt conscription.

*MR. COURTHOPE

supported the proposal for a sliding scale. When the Bill was introduced he differed from many of his friends on that side of the House who were very much alarmed at the proposal of a £5 fine. But since that time this £5 fine had been a great deal talked about, and the rank and file of the Volunteers had become very much alarmed about the matter. He would like to point out a practical consideration. It was well known by the men that a court of summary jurisdiction always considered a defendant's circumstances before imposing a fine; and fines imposed on Volunteers for failing to become efficient were never more than a few shillings. Thy fine of £5 would not act as a deterrent to men leaving, but it would most certainly act as a deterrent to men joining. He spoke from experience, having been a Volunteer adjutant. He had had some experience in endeavouring to impose fines under the present system. An agricultural labourer might be receiving a wage of only 12s. or 14s. a week, with perhaps an invalid mother to support, and there were very few cases in which any appreciable fine would be imposed by the local bench on such a man for breaking his service. He hoped the Secretary for War would see his way to accept a sliding scale.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.)

said that at present the commanding officers had the power of imposing fines, and it was well known that they put a sliding scale of fines in force.

*MR. COURTHOPE

said that it was not the commanding officer but the local bench who would impose the fines.

MR. BUCHANAN

said that that was a matter on which everybody could form his own opinion. It was not intended always to enforce the maximum amount scheduled. Though there was in reality no point of principle involved, it was

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cheetham, John Frederick Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Acland, Francis Dyke Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Agnew, George William Clough, William Harmsworth,Cecil B. (Wore'r)
Allen.A. Acland (Christchurch) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hart-Davies. T.
Armitage, R. Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Armstrong, W.C. Heaton Cornwall, Sir Elwin A. Harvey,W. E.(Derbyshire,N.E.
Astbury, John Meir Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haworth, Arthur A.
Baker. SirJohn (Portsmouth) Cowan, W. H. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.) Crooks, William Helme, Norval Watson
Barker, John Crosfield, A. H. Hemmerde, Edward George
Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Henry, Charles S.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)
Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone.N.) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Higham, John Sharp
Beck, A. Cecil Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hobart. Sir Robert
Bell, Richard Dickinson,W.H.(St. Pancras,N Hobhouse. Charles E. H.
Bellairs, Carlyon Dunne,Major E.Martin (Walsall Holt, Richard Durning
Benn,Sir J.Williams( Devonp'rt Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Horniman. Emslie John
Bimn.W (TowerHamlets.S.Geo. Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Bennett. E. N. Elibank, Master of Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Berridge, T. H. D. Erskine, David C. Hyde, Clarendon
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Essex, R. W. Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Esslemont, George Birnie Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Billson, Alfred Evans, Samuel T. Johnson, W (Nuneaton)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Everett, R, Lacey Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Brace, William Faber, G. H. (Boston) Jones,William (Carnarvonshire
Bramsdon, T. A. Fenwick, Charles Kekewich, Sir George
Branch, James Ferens, T. R. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Brigg, John Findlay, Alexander King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Laidlaw. Robert
Bryce, J. Annan Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fuller, John Michael F. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford,S.) Lambert, George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gill, A. H. Lamont, Norman
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Goddard, Daniel Ford Layland-Barratt, Francis
Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Gooch, George Peabody Lehmann, R. C.
Cairns, Thomas Griffith, Ellis J. Levy, Maurice
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gulland, John W. Lewis, John Herbert
Causton,Rt.Hn.Rie.hardKnight Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B. Lough, Thomas
Cawley, Sir Frederick Hall, Frederick Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

needful to possess some kind of power to impose a maximum fine, giving at the same time an absolute discretion and power of relaxation.

MR. ASHLEY

said he would rather have the maximum fine inserted in the Bill than leave it indefinitely to the County Associations. An hon. Member had spoken in reference to the difference of treatment between the Yeomanry and the other branches of the Auxiliary services. So far as length of service was concerned all branches should be placed on an equality; but so far as conditions of service was concerned that should lie left to the County Associations who would take them into account in imposing the full fine or relaxing it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 85. (Division List, No. 204)

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Radford, G. H. Toulmin, George
M'Crae, George Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th Ure. Alexander
M'Laren,Sir C. B. (Leicester) Robertson.Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee) Verney, F. W.
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Walters, John Tudor
M'Micking, Major G. Rogers, F. E. Newman Walton,Sir JohnL. (Leeds,S.)
Maddison, Frederick Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland) Waring, Walter
Markham, Arthur Basil Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston) Seaverns, J. II. Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Marnham, F. J. Seely, Major J. B. Waterlow, D. S.
Menzies, Walter Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Weir, James Galloway
Mond, A. Shaw, Rt, Hon. T.(Hawick B.) White, George (Norfolk)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Sherwell, Arthur James White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Montgomery, H. G. Shipman, Dr. John G. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Silcock, Thomas Ball Whitehead, Rowland
Morse, L. L. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Spicer, S:r Albert Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Myer, Horatio Stanger. H. Y. Wiles, Thomas
Napier, T. B. Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh. Williams. J. (Glamorgan)
Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilson,Hn. C.H.W. (Hull. W.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward Wilson,P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Nuttall, Harry Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Winfrey, R.
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Yoxall, James Henry
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. TELLERS FOR THE. AYES— Mr.
Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke Thompson, J.W. H.(Somerset,E Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Tillett, Louis John Pease.
Pirie, Duncan V. Tomkinson, James
NOES.
Acland-Hood.RtHn.Sir Alex.F. Fletcher, J. S. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Forster, Henry William Seddon, J.
Alison, Sir William Reynell Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Shackleton, David James
Arkwright,John Stanhope Clover, Thomas Shelfield,SirBerkeley(Jeorge D
Arnold-Forster,Rt. Hn.Hugh O. Henderson,Arthur (Durham) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Ashley, W. W. Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Steadman, W. C.
Aubroy-Flether.Rt.Hon.Sir H. Hills, J. W. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Balcarres, Lord Hope, John Deans (Fife,West) Summerbell, T.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Houston, Robert Paterson Sutherland, J. E.
Barnes, G. N. Hudson, Walter Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry.N.) Hunt, Rowland Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohn H. Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Bowles, G. Stewart King,SirHenrySeymour (Hull). Thorne, William
Boyle, Sir Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Valentia, Viscount.
Bull, Sir William James Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.) Vincent,Col.Sir C. E. Howard
Butcher, Samuel Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Byles, William Pollard Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Walsh, Stephen
Carlile, E. Hildred M'Callum, John M. Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)
Castlereagh, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount Wardle, George J.
Cave, George O'Grady, J. Watt. Henry A.
Cleland, J. VV. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clynes, J. R. Parker, James (Halifax) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cochrane,Hon. Thos.H.A.E. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Craig,CharlesCurtis( Antrim, S. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Craik, Sir Henry Remnant, James Farquharson Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Duncan.C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) TELLERS FOE THE NOES—
Duncan,Robert((Lanark,Govan Roberts.S.(Sheffield,Eeclesall) Captain Craig and Mr. Court. hope.
Fardell, SirT. George Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Foil, Arthur Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
MR. ASHLEY

moved an Amendment to provide that whore, for good and sufficient cause, the delivery of the arms and appointments was impossible, a man desiring his discharge should be allowed to pay the value of the things. As the Bill stood the Territorial soldier had to fulfil three conditions in order to get out of the Territorial Army. He had to give three months notice in writing to his commanding officer, to pay hope.£5 or such sum as might be thought lit, and to deliver up in good order, wear and tear only excepted, all arras, clothing, and appointments being public property issued to him. That ho might not be able to do.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

said he understood the Government accepted the Amendment. Was it necessary to argue further?

MR. ASHLEY

said he only intended to do so shortly.

MR. BUCHANAN

said the Government accepted the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 3, at end, to add the words ' or, in cases where for any good and sufficient cause the delivery of the property aforesaid is impossible, on paying the value thereof.'"— (Mr. Ashley.)

Question, "That those words be their inserted," put, and agreed to.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

moved to leave out of the proviso to Subsection 3 the words "for the association for the county or for any officer authorised by the association," in order to insert the words "for his commanding officer." He said that the power to dispense with the conditions as to notice and payment properly belonged to the commanding officer, and ought not to be usurped by the association. If this subsection of the Bill was left as it stood, the authority delegated by the War Office to the commanding officer and his sense of responsibility would most assuredly be weakened.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words, 'the association for the county or for any officer authorised by the association,' and insert the words 'his commanding officer."—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the clause."

SIR H. VINCENT

hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment. There could be no doubt whatever that it was the commanding officer and not the association which would have the knowledge of individuals, and the more the administration of a regiment was left to the commanding officer the better it would be for the regiment.

MR. ACLAND

thought the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had read this subsection as though the words "or for any officer authorised by the association" were not in it. The great importance of the commanding officer and of his retaining all reasonable powers were so universally recognised that one could not conceive of an association, except in very special circumstances, doing otherwise than delegating this power to him if the commanding officer was willing to exercise it. He was not sure it was proper to leave the power of the association so that it should in every case be delegated to commanding officers, because the latter might be put in an invidious position. The money for the fines went to the association, and the commanding officer had ceased to have any interest in them, and he might be tempted, as the matter did not concern his battalion, to let men off. He would rather have this dispensing power vested in someone else. He could conceive that if it were the universal rule that the commanding officer should be the dispensing officer, the commanding officer of one battalion might get the reputation of always letting off men, while another commanding officer might take a much stricter view of his duties, and there would thus be differences between battalion and battalion in the same association, which would-be very undesirable. It was better to leave the matter to the association, with full power to delegate it to the commanding officer or any-other officer.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

admitted that the situation was very undesirable when on such an important Amendments this the hon. Gentleman opposite was put up to give the Committee the opinion of the Government. It was most undesirable that he should answer for the Government when the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Under-Secretary of State for India were both present. He thought his hon. friend should have some reply from responsible member upon the merits of the Amendment.

MR. BUCHANAN

was understood to say the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. The Association would act in the main through the commanding officer. The commanding officers would be largely represented on the association, and no sensible association would act in strong opposition to the views of the commanding officers. But in accordance with the principles of the Bill and of the clauses already passed this was a duty of which the responsibility must remain with the association.

*MR. COURTHOPE

said that both the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for the Richmond Division had given strong arguments in favour of accepting the Amendment. Both of them had said it was ridiculous to imagine that any association would do otherwise than place this power upon the shoulders of sensible commanding officers. He was assuming that the Army Council wore going to be sensible enough to remove a commanding officer who was not himself' sensible. That being the case the whole objection of the Government dropped to the ground. There should be nothing but sensible commanding officers. They were told that the County Associations would place these powers on the commanding officers; but if that were so why was there any objection to putting it in the Bill? The Govern, meat had said that they agreed with all those Amendments; they accepted them in principle, but they did not mean to have them in the Bill. It was most extraordinary if the Government intended to place the powers upon the shoulders of the commanding officers that they would not have it put down in black and white. If that was really their intention they should accept the Amendment.

MR. McCRAE

regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment. He thought this clause was the reddest of red tape and must have been drafted by a most military-minded man. Was the County Association to undertake the duty of clothing each battalion? If so, it must have a very large depot, for the storage of uniforms, etc. Was the Territorial soldier to "deliver up his uniform in good order" to the County Association or the commanding officer? If the uniforms were to be delivered up to the commanding officer, then he ought to have the responsibility. In the district of Edinburgh they had three infantry battalions clothed in different uniforms. Were these uniforms to be stored at the County Association's depot, or were they to be placed under the control of the commanding officer? The clause had been defended only on the plea that it would never be put in force. It was preposterous to put the County Association in the position in which it would be placed by the clause. He hoped that in the interests of discipline the Government would reconsider the point.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

suggested that the view of both the Government and the mover of the Amendment might be maintained if they would agree to an Amendment to the Amendment providing that it should b3 lawful for the commanding officer, authorised by the County Association, to remit the fine. Then the commanding officer would be responsible. to the County Association. In that case, they would have responsibility established in the County Association and the commanding officer acting for the County Association. The Commanding Officer would then be responsible to the County Association, and report to them his reasons for remitting the fine upon discharging a man. He thought probably the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment in view of the fact that the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield and of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh were unanswerable, and also of the fact that those Gentlemen were, on the whole, friendly to the Bill, and were ready to accept its provisions and make it workable.

MR. CHARLES ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

expressed the opinion that it was a great pity that the Government could not accept the suggestion. It had been pointed out that if the Bill remained as it was, the commanding officer would have no interest in the matter, and that would be so because the responsibility would be with the County Association. The commanding officer would find himself in a very unpleasant position if he were inclined to let a man off the fine and the County Association would not allow him to do so. This was a question, not of administration, but of discipline, and he regretted that the Government had not accepted the Amendment.

CAPTAIN CRAIG

said the Bill provided that a man was to give three months notice in writing to his commanding officer if he wished his discharge, but the Bill also provided that the association could override the commanding officer's decision and judge whether the reasons for the discharge were sufficient to allow of its being granted. If the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Richmond were carried out, it would simply mean that an official appointed by the association would act as a sort of bailiff to get out of the man the money which should go to the colonel of the regiment, who had the interests of the whole of the men at heart. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had struck a wrong note entirely when he said that this matter should not be left to the colonel commanding the regiment. A regiment of first class Yeomanry or a battalion of Infantry should have their interests entrusted to the colonel commanding, and they ought not to be entrusted entirely to the County Association. The association would put in an independent man, just as a county council or a board of guardians would put in a man to collect a rate, and the commanding officer would be passed over in regard to the matter. If such a principle were adopted, and if colonels were to be treated in that way, the Bill would fall entirely to the ground and would never work. The clause said that the reasons for the discharge were to be sufficient and urgent. Who was to be the judge of the sufficiency and urgency? Surely the man who would be the best judge of these matters was the man who commanded the regiment, who was intimate with the men of the corps, who knew them, and was best able to judge when a man was entitled to his discharge. Who knew the men best—the association or the commanding officer, who had his men on parade, whose adjutant was in the closest touch with them all the year round, and who had the knowledge necessary to enable him to come to a determination as to whether the man should have his discharge? The association had not that knowledge of the regiment which was possessed by the commanding officer; but they would delegate a man, John Jones or whoever it might be, to collect the money which should go to the colonel of the regiment; and they would thus be starting the Territorial Force with the feeling that its commanding officers were not trusted by the association, the right hon. Gentleman, or the officials of the War Office. The Financial Secretary had said that the object was to keep the men as much as possible within the purview of the County Association. By all means let them keep matters within the County Association, but when they delegated a man to perform certain duties, then let them trust that man right up to the hilt. If the County Associations were to dwarf the powers of the commanding officers, the scheme of the right hon. Gentle man would be starting very badly. It would be cruelty to clip the wings of commanding officers in the way proposed. It was possible that one County Association might appoint a representative who exacted all the fine, while across the border another County Association might appoint an officer who was easy and did not impose fines; and the men would say, "Oh, here is a man who is soft-hearted and does not fine us, we will go there." Therefore what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had pointed out as touching the colonel would certainly touch the person appointed by the County Association. The value of the clause would certainly not be enhanced, and he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had much pleasure in supporting the eloquent appeal made by his hon. and gallant friend, who had some knowledge of these matters. Under Sub-section 3 of the clause, notice was to be given to the commanding officer. Unless the Amendment were accepted they would give an appeal from the commanding officer to the County Association. It would be difficult to devise anything more subver- sive of discipline. He was sure that that point need not be insisted upon. The right hon. Gentleman had again and again assured them that the Territorial Force was to be commanded by military officers, and only administered by the County Associations. If the Amendment were passed, the soldier, if dissatisfied with the decision given, would have the ordinary channel of appeal, namely, he could bring the matter before the brigadier —up the ladder of military authority, to the brigadier if the Territorial Force was to be commanded by soldiers and not by civilians on the County Associations. Any appeal for the commanding officer ought to go. If they allowed an appeal from the commanding officer to the County Association they were transferring questions of discipline from the military authority to a civil body.

*MR. HALDANE

said the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was in substance whether this was a question relating to command or to administration. The Government wanted to separate command from administrative functions, and to give the administrative duties to the association. That was the real point in contest. If they turned to Clause 2, they would find that the County Associations had to administer the territorial units; and if they turned to Clause 8 they had to administer, among other things, the questions of clothes, arms, and equipment. These were clearly administrative items which concerned the association rather than the commanding officer. The Committee had decided that a man who broke his engagement had to pay £5 to cover the cost which the association had been put to in providing for his training and equipment. How could it be said that that was a question of command and not of administration? The three items to which he had referred were clearly administrative and concerned the association rather than the commanding officer. He thought the Committee forget that the principle of the Bill was to separate command from administration. Then as to the composition of the association, it must be remembered that on the association there would be commanding officers, and they would have the assistance of the brigadier-in-chief. The Government had left power to the association to delegate it to any other officer to say on what grounds a man might be let off. That was the only way of dealing with the matter consistently with practical common sense and sound business principles. If they took the other course they chose a commanding officer who was not concerned with this matter of administration and put him in an invidious position. The association would want the decision of some officer. That officer might be the commanding officer, but it was better to leave it to the association to say who the officer should be.

MR. COURTHOPE

asked why, if everything else in this sub-clause was to be dealt with by the County Association as a purely administrative matter, was three months notice to be given? He contended that the commanding officer was the natural person to settle the pros and cons as to whether an individual soldier should be let off. The power ought to be entrusted to the commanding officer right through the section. Surely it ought to be the commanding officer's duty to consider whether or not a man was entitled to some remission of the heavy penalties and liabilities or whether the utmost rigour of the law ought to be enforced.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the County Association was to have these direct appeals and go into their economic effects. That was purely farcical. They must put the responsibility on the commanding officer. If the commanding officer granted discharges unduly so as to involve the association in undue expense it would be time to point out to him that he had not a proper care for public economy. They could not dissipate the responsibility between the commanding officer on the one hand and the county association on the other.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

appealed to the Secretary for War to accept the Amendment and expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to support the very flimsy arguments which had been addressed to the Committee by his subordinates. He Could not agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend in the suggestion he had made to take away a small part of the authority of the commanding officer. He would like to see that authority retained and if anything made stronger. As regarded his own regiment the commanding officer should be an autocrat, and everything connected with his regiment should go through the channel of the commanding officer. The question was whether the commanding officer should be looked upon as the responsible individual or not. Commanding officers on both sides of the House had given their view upon the point in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and obviously there must be some substance in the Amendment.

*MR. CARLILE

supported the Amendment. He thought there was a real necessity for retaining the control and services of the commanding officers. There should be no question of delegating to County Associations or officers appointed by them the powers which naturally lay with the commanding officer. No commanding officer worth his salt would tolerate the meddling of the County Association. In the County Associations there would be a number of commanding officers. The commanding officer of one battalion would not tolerate dictation by the commanding officers of other battalions, however good they might be. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to allow this power to be administered by the commanding officers. He would not regret doing so, for it would save him a great deal of trouble, as Minister of War, in finding commanding officers. It was not every man in a battalion who was suited to occupy a position of that kind. It was often very difficult to find them, and no doubt the result was that unsuitable men were sometimes appointed, very much to the detriment of the corps. Commanding officers had to meet a certain amount of expense in connection with their battalions, and, therefore, there was the double difficulty of finding men who had, not only the necessary qualifications, but the necessary moans to occupy the position. If this proposal were left as it now stood in the Bill, there would be one ready-made source of difficulty to the Minister for War. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise that there were about him in this House commanding officers of experience, and that he would accept guidance from them on such practical details as this. He hoped there would be no delegation to the County Association, or to officers nominated by that association, of powers which naturally lay with the commanding officer with regard to the conditions on which the members of his battalion should be allowed to retire.

MR. BRODIE (Surrey, Reigate)

said that if the Secretary of State for War had been able to be present during the last three-quarters of an hour he would have found that there was a general feeling in all parts of the Committee in favour of some alteration in the wording of the clause. He did not think that the Amendment of the noble Lord quite met the case. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gravesend. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

said he had waited for some time in the hope that the Secretary of State would rise and answer the appeal which had been made to him by hon. Members on his own side. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have been informed of the very strong opinion expressed on this subject by experienced Members on his own side as to the great necessity of meeting the Committee on this point. It was really not fair to the Committee or to the force he desired to create for the right hon. Gentleman to try to conduct the Bill with the obstinacy he had shown. There were Members in all parts of the House anxious to help him, and yet he would not accept a simple Amendment like that under discussion. It was certainly a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman could meet the general wishes of the Committee. If he was going to adopt non possumus attitude he had better drop the Bill altogether, for even if the Bill passed through this House, it would never pass the House of Lords.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

thought the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the necessity of discipline. He did not believe in a Territorial Force or County Associations, but he knew it was impossible that such a scheme could have any success at all unless it was administered in strict accordance with discipline; and discipline could only be

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Dalziel, James Henry Horniman, Emslie John
Acland, Francis Dyke Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Agnew, George William Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Ainsworth, John Stirling Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hudson, Walter
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Armitage, R. Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Hyde, Clarendon
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Ashton, Thomas Gair Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Astbury, John Meir Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea
Barker, John Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barlow, JohnEmmott( Somerset Elibank, Master of Jones,William (Carnarvonshire
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Erskine, David C. Jowett, F. W.
Barnes, G. N. Essex, R. W. Kearley, Hudson E.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Esslemont, George Birnie Kekewich, Sir george
Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.) Evans, Samuel T. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Beck, A. Cecil Eve, Harry Trelawney Laidlaw, Robert
Bell, Richard Everett, R. Lacey Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster)
Bellairs, Carlyon Fenwick, Charles Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Benn.Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt Ferens, T. R. Lambert, George
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lamont, Norman
Bennett, E. N. Findlay, Alexander Layland-Barratt, Francis
Berridge, T. H. D. Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.)
Bertram, Julius Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lehmann, R. C.
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Fuller, John Michael F. Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Fullerton, Hugh Levy, Maurice
Billson, Alfred Furness, Sir Christopher Lewis, John Herbert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford,S.) Lough, Thomas
Bowerman, C. H. Gill, A. H. Lupton, Arnold
Brace, William Glover, Thomas Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Bramsdon, T. A. Goddard, Daniel Ford Lyell, Charles Henry
Branch, James Gooch, George Peabody Lynch, H. B.
Brigg, John Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brocklehurst, H. B. Griffith, Ellis J. Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brooke, Stopford Gulland, John W. Maclean, Donald
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bryce, J. Annan Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hall, Frederick M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Buckmaster, Stanley 0. Harcourt, Rt. Hon.Lewis M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Bums, Rt. Hon. John Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Micking, Major G.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Maddison, Frederick
Buxton.Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles Harmsworth.R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Mallet, Charles E.
Byles, William Pollard Hart-Davies, T. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Markham. Arthur Basil
Cans ton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight Harvey.W.E. (Derbyshire,N. E. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harlam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marnham, F. J.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Haworth, Arthur A. Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Massie, J.
Cleland, J. W. Helme, Norval Watson Menzies, Walter
Clough, William Hemmerde, Edward George Molteno, Percy Alport
Clynes, J. R. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mond, A.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Montgomery. H. G.
Collins.Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras,W Henry, Charles S. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Corbett.C.H. (Sussex.E.Gr'st'd Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.) Morrell, Philip
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morse, L. L.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cowan, W. H. Hobart, Sir Robert Myer, Horatio
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Napier, T. B.
Crooks, William Holland, Sir William Henry Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Crossley, William J. Holt, Richard Durning Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

maintained by the man selected to command.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes, 279; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 205.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nussey, Thomas; Willans Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Ure, Alexander
Nuttall, Harry Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Walsh, Stephen
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester) Walters, John Tudor
O'Grady, J. Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Parker, James (Halifax) Seaverns, J. H. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Partington, Oswald Seddon, J. Ward.John (Stoke upon Trent
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Seely, Major, J. B. Wardle, George J.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Shackleton, David James Waring, Walter
Pearson.Sir W.D. (Colchester) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wason,John Cat heart (Orkney
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Sherwell, Arthur James Waterlow, D. S.
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Shipman, T)r. John G. Weir, James Galloway
Pollard, Dr. Silcock, Thomas Ball White, George (Norfolk)
Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Price.Robert John (Norfolk,E.) Spicer, Sir Albert White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Stanger, H. Y. Whitehead, Rowland
Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford.E.) Steadman, W. C. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Radford, G. II. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rainy, A. Rolland Strachey, Sir Edward Wiles, Thomas
Raphael, Herbert H. Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wills, Arthur Walters
Renton, Major Leslie Summerbell, T. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Winfrey, R.
Robertson.Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thomasson, Franklin
Robinson, S. Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset,E TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Thorne, William Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Roe, Sir Thomas Tomkinson, James Pease.
Rogers, F. E. Newman Torrance, Sir A. M.
Rose, Charles Day Toulmin, George
NOES.
Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.SirAlex.F. Duncan, Robert.( Lanark, Govan) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Faber, George Denison (York) Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber,Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fardell, Sir T George Remnant, James Farquharson
Ashley, W. W. Fell. Arthur Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hon.Sir H. Fletcher, J. S. Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.) Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banner, John S. Harmood- Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Harwood, George Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hedges, A. Paget Sheffield.Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Helmsley, Viscount Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bowles, G. Stewart Hills, J. W. Stanley,Hn.A. (Lyulph(Chesh.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Starkey, John R.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Houston, Robert Paterson Stone, Sir Benjamin
Brodie, H.C. Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bull, Sir William James Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Talbot,Rt.Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Kenyon-Slaney.Rt.Hn. Col. W. Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Butcher, Samuel Henry King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Thornton, Percy M.
Carlile, E. Hildred Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Valentia, Viscount
Cave, George Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cavendish, Rt. H.n. Victor C.W. Lockwood,Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R. Walker,Col. W.H. (Lancashire)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Wore. Lond.Col.Charles W.(Evesham) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cheetham, John Frederick Lonsdale, John Brownlee Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Courthope, G Loyd Marks, H. H. (Kent) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wilson,Hon. C.H.W. (Hull,W.)
Craik, Sir Henry Morpeth, Viscount Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dalrymple, Viscount Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.) Nicholson, Wrn.G.(Petersfield) TELLERS FOR THE NOSE—
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens | Viscount Castlereagh and Captain Craig.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Pirie, Duncan V.

And, it being after half-past ton of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th May, successively to put forthwith the Ques

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 281;

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda.) Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Higham. John Sharp
Acland, Francis Dyke Crooks, William Hobart, Sir Robert
Agnew, George William Crosfield, A. H. Hobhouse. Charles E. H.
Ainsworth, John Stirling; f; Crossley, William J. Holland, Sir William Henry
Alden, Percy Dalziel, James Henry Holt, Richard Durning
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Davies, David (MontgomeryCo. Horniman. Emslie John
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Armitage, R. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hutton. Alfred Eddison
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hyde, Clarendon
Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Astbury. John Meir Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.) Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barker, John Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Jones.Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Elibank, Master of Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Erskine, David C'. Kearley, Hudson, E.
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) Essex, R. W. Kekewich, Sir (Jeorge
Beck, A. Cecil Esslemont, George Birnie Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bell, Richard Evans, Samuel T. Laidlaw, Robert
Bellairs, Carlyon Eve, Harry Trelawney Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster)
Benn,Sir J.Williams (Devonp'rt Everett, R. Lacey Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Fenwick, Charles Lambert, George
Bennett, E. N. Ferens, T. R. Lamont, Norman
Berridge, T. H. D. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Layland-Barratt. Francis
Bertram, Julius Findlay, Alexander Lehmann, R. C.
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Levy. Maurice
Billson, Alfred Fuller, John Michael F. Lewis, John Herbert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Fullerton, Hugh Lough, Thomas
Brace, William Furness, Sir Christopher Lupton, Arnold
Bramsdon, T. A. Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford,S.) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Branch, James Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John Lyell, Charles Henry
Brigg, John Goddard. Daniel Ford Lynch, H. B.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gooch, George Peabody MacdonaldJ. M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Brodie, H. C. Greenwood. G. (Peterborough) Mackarness, Frederic C.
Brooke, Stopford Griffith, Ellis J. Maclean, Donald
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh) Gulland, John W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bryce, J. Annan Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Crae, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hall, Frederick M'Laren, Sir ('. B. (Leicester)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Micking, Major G.
Buxton. Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Maddison, Frederick
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harmsworth.R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh Mallet, Charles E.
Causton,Rt. Hn.RichardKnight Hart-Davies, T. Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Markham, Arthur Basil
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E. Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)
Cheetham, John Frederick Harwood, George Marnham, F. J.
Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R. Haslam. Lewis (Monmouth) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cleland, J. W. Haworth, Arthur A. Massie, J.
Clough, William Hazel, Dr. A. E. Menzies, Walter
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hedges, A. Paget Molteno, Percy Alport
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. I Helme, Norval Watson Mond, A.
Corbett.C. H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd | Hemmerde, Edward George Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cornwall. Sir Edwin A. Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.) Montgomery, H, G.
Cory, Clifford John Henry, Charles S. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Cotton. Sir H. J. S. Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.) Morrell, Philip
Cowan, W. H. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morse, L. L.

tions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded—:

Question put, "That the clause, as amen led, stand part of the Bill."

Noes,124.(Division List No.206.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roe, Sir Thomas Toulmin, George
Myer, Horatio Rogers, F. E. Newman Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Napier, T. B. Rose, Charles Day Uure, Alexander
Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Verney, F. WT.
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland) Walters, John Tudor
Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster Samuel, P. M. (Whitechapel) Walton, sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester) Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)
Nuttall, Harry Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Ward.W. Dudley (Southampton
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Seaverns, J. H. Waring, Walter
Partington, Oswald Seely, Major J. B. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. Waterlow, D. S.
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Sherwell, Arthur James Watt, Henry A.
Philipps,J. Wynford( Pembroke) Shipman, Dr. John G. Weir, James Galloway
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Silcock. Thomas Ball White, George (Norfolk)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Simon, John Allsebrook White, J. I). (Dumbartonshire)
Pirie, Duncan V. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Pollard, Dr. Spicer, Sir Albert Whitehead, Rowland
Price.C. E. (Edinburgh.Central) Stanger, H. Y. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Price.Robert John(Norfolk, E.) Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Steadman, W. C. Wiles, Thomas
Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford, E.) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Williams,Llewelyn Carmarthen
Radford, G. H. Strachey, Sir Edward Williamson, A.
Rainy, A. Rolland Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wills, Arthur Walters
Raphael, Herbert H. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Taylor,Austin (East Toxteth) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rees, J. D. Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Renton, Major Leslie Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury) Winfrey, R.
Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee) Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.) Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Thomasson, Franklin
Robertson, J.M. (Tyneside) Thompson,J.W.H.(SomersetE.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Robinson, S. Tomkinson, James Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon Torrance, Sir A. M. Pease.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Craik, Sir Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Anstruther-Gray, Major Dalrymple, Viscount Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Ashley, W. W. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Macpherson, J. T.
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt. Hon. SirH. Duncan.C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Balcarres, Lord Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Balfour.Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond. Faber, George Denison (York) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Morpeth, Viscount
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fardell, Sir T. George Muntz, Philip A.
Barnes, G. N. Fell, Arthur Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)
Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Fletcher, J. S. O'Grady, J.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Forster, Henry William O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)
Bowerman, C. W. Gill, A. H. Parker, James (Halifax)
Bowles, G. Stewart Glover, Thomas Parkes, Ebenezer
Boyle, Sir Edward Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Helmsley, Viscount Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Remnant, James Farquharson
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Byles, William Pollard Hills, J. W. Roberts,S.(Sheffield. Ecclesall)
Carlile, E. Hildred Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter
Castlereagh, Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cave, George Hudson, Walter Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cavendish,Rt.Hon. Victor C.W. Hunt, Rowland Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Jowett, F. W. Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc. Kennaway,Rt.Hon.Sir JohnH. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chaplin, Rt.Hon. Henry Kenyon-Slaney, Rt, Hon. Col. W. Seddon, J.
Clynes, J. R. King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull) Shackleton, David James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.
Corbett.A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras.E.) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Courthope, G. Loyd Lee,Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Smith,F.E. (Liverpool.Walton)
Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.) Lockwood,Rt,Hn.Lt,-Col.A. R. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Craig.Captain James(Down,E.) Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham Starkey, John R.
Stone, Sir Benjamin Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerbell, T. Walker.Col.W.H. (Lancashire) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Sutherland, J. E. Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Walsh, Stephen Younger, George
Talbot, Rt. Hn.,T. G. (Oxf dUniv. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wardle, George J. TELLERS FOB THE NOES—
Thomson,W.Mitchell (Lanark) Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Thorne, William Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) and Viscount Valentia.
Thornton; Percy M. Willoughby, De Eresby, Lord

Clause 9:

The Committee divided: -Ayes, 277;

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Haworth, Arthur A.
Acland, Francis Dyke Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Agnew, George William Cory, Clifford John Hedges, A, Paget
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Helme, Norval Watson
Alden, Percy Cowan, W. H. Hemmerde, Edward George
Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch) Craig,Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Crosfield, A. H. Henry, Charles S.
Armitage, R. Crossley, William J. Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Dalziel, James Henry Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies,David (Montgomery Co. Higham, John Sharp
Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hobart. Sir Robert
Astbury, John Meir Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Holland. Sir William Henry
Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Holt, Richard Durning
Barker, John Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Horniman. Emslie John
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Horridge. Thomas Gardner
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dunne,Major E. Martin (Walsall Howard. Hon. Geoffrey
Barran, Rowland Hirst Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Hutton. Alfred Eddison
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hyde. Clarendon
Beck, A. Cecil Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Bell, Richard Elibank, Master of Jacoby. Sir James Alfred
Bellairs, Carlyon Erskine, David C. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Benn.Sir J,Williams(Devonp'rt Essex, R. W. Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo. Esslemont, George Birnie Jones.Sir D. Brynmor(Swansaa)
Bennett, E. N. Evans, Samuel T. Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Berridge, T. H. D. Eve, Harry Trelawney Jones.William (Carnarvonshire
Bertram, Julius Everett, R. Lacey Kearley, Hudson E.
Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Fenwick, Charles Kekewich, Sir George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Ferens, T. R, Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Billson, Alfred Ferguson, R. C. Munro Laidlaw, Robert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Findlay, Alexander Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Brace, William Foster) Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lamb. Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bramsdon, T. A. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lambert. George
Branch, James Fuller, John Michael K. Lamont. Norman
Brigg,John Fullerton, Hush Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gardner.Col.Alan (Hereford,S.) Lehmann, R. C.
Brodie, H. C. Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lever.W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)
Brooke; Stopford Goddard, Daniel Ford Levy, Maurice
Brunner, J.F.L.(Lanes.,Leigh) Gooch, George Peabody Lewis, John Herbert
Bryce, J. Annan Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lough, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Griffith, Ellis J. Lupton, Arnold
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Gulland, John W. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lyell, Charles Henry
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Lynch. H. B.
Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Hall, Frederick Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis Mackarness, Frederic C.
Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Maclean, Donald
Cawley, Sir Frederick Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cheetham, John Frederick Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh M'Crae, George
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hart-Davies, T. M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cleland, J. W. Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Laren. Sir C. B. (Leicester
Clough, William Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E. M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harwood, George M'Micking, Major G.
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mallet, Charles E.

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

Noes, 12G. (Division List No. 207.)

Manfield, Harry (Northan.s) Rees, J. D. Thompson, J.W.H.( Somerset,E
Markham, Arthur Basil Renton, Major Leslie Tomkinson, James
Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th Torrance, Sir A. M.
Marnham, F. J. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.( Dundee Toulmin, George
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Massie, J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Ure, Alexander
Menzies, Walter Robinson, S. Verney, F. W.
Molteno, Percy Alport Robson, Sir William Snowdon Walters, John Tudor
Mond, A. Roe, Sir Thomas Walton.Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rogers, F. E. Newman Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Montgomery. H. G Rose, Charles Day Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Ward.W.Dudley (Southampt'n
Morrell, Philip Samuel, Herbert L.(Cloveland) Waring, Walter
Morse, L. 1.. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wilson, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Schwann, (C Duncan (Hyde) Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney)
Myer, Horatio Schwann.Sir C.E.(Manchester) Waterlow, D. S.
Napier, T. B. Seaverns, J H. Watt, Henry A.
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Seely, Major J. B. Weir, James Galloway
Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) White, George (Norfolk)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, J. D. ( Dumbartonshire)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Sherwell, Arthur James White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Nut-tall, Harry Shipman, Dr. John CJ. Whitehead, Rowland
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Silcock. Thomas Ball Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)
Partington, Oswald Simon, John Allsebrook Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Pearce, Robert. (Staffs, Leek) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wiles, Thomas
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Pearson,Sir W. D.(Colchester) Spicer, Sir Albert Williams,Llewellyri(Carmarth'n
Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke Stanger. H. Y. Williamson, A.
Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke) Stanley, H11. A.Lyulph(Chesh. Wills, Arthur Walters
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Steadman, W. C Wilson, Hn.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Pirie, Duncan V. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)
Pollard. Dr. Strachey, Sir Edward Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Price.C. E.(Edinburgh,Central) Straus, B. S.(Mile End) Winfrey, R.
Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Priestley. Arthur (Grantham) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Yoxall, James Henry
Priestley, W. K.B.( Bradford, K.) Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Radford, (G. H. Tennant, Sir Edward( Salisbury TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.Mr.
Rainy, A. Rolland Tennant, H. J.(Berwickshire) Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Raphael, Herbert H. Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Pease.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thomasson, Franklin
NOES.
Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F Clynes, J. R. Houston, Robert Paterson
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hudson, Walter
Anstruther-Gray, Major Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hunt, Rowland
Arkwright, John Stanhope Courthope, G. Loyd Jowett, F. W.
Ashley, W. W. Craig.Charles Curtis (Antrim,S. Kennaway,Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Aubrey-Fletchcr,Rt.Hon.Sir H Craig.Captain James (Down, E. Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col. W.
Balfour.Rt Hn.A..T.(City bond. Craik, Sir Henry King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)
Banbury. Sir Frederick George Crooks, William Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Banner,.John S. Harmood Dalrymple, Viscount Lea,Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.
Barnes, G N. Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Lee.Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham
Barrie, H T.( Londonderry, N.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A. R.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)
Bignold,.Sir Arthur Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bowerman, C. W Faber, George Dension (York) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bowles, G. Stewart Faber.Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Boyle, Sir Edward Fardell, Sir T. George Macpherson, J. T.
Bridgeman, W.Clive Fell, Arthur Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Bull, Sir William James Fletcher, J. S. Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Burdett-Coutts, \ Forster, Henry William Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Butcher, Samuel Henry Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Morpeth, Viscount
Byles, William Pollard Gill, A. H. Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Carlile, E. Hildred Glover, Thomas Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)
Castlereagh, Viscount Harrison-Broadley, H. B. O'Grady, J.
Cave, George Helmsley, Viscount O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds Parker, James (Halifax)
Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A.(Wore. Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Parkes, Ebenezer
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Hills, J. W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Ratcliff, Major R, F.
Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel Sloan, Thomas Henry Walsh, Stephen
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith.F.E. (Liverpool,Walton) Warde, Col. C E. (Kent, Mid.)
Richards,T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wardle, George J.
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Starkey, John R. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Stone, Sir Benjamin Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter Summerbell, T. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton )
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Sutherland, J. E. Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Talbot.Rt.Hn. J.G (Oxf'dUniv. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Arthur Clavell Taylor, John W. (Durham) Younger, George
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles Thomson,W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Thorne, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Valentia, Viscount Lord Edmund Talbot and
Seddon, J. Vincent, Col. Sir( E. Howard Lord Balcarres.
Shackleton, David James Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)
Sheflicld,SirBerkeloyGeorge D. Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Clause 10:

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 281;

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cawley, Sir Frederick Gulland, John W.
Acland, Francis Dyke Channing, Sir Francis Allston Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Agnew, George William Cheetham, John Frederick Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hall, Frederick
Alden, Percy Cleland, J. W. Harcourt, Et. Hon. Lewis
Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch) Clough, William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)
Armitage, R. Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras W. Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Hart-Davies, T.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Asquith,Rt.Hon HerbertHenry Cory, Clifford John Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.
Astbury, John Meir Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Harwood, George
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cowan, W. H. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Haworth, Arthur A.
Barker, John Crosfield, A. H. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset Crossley, William J. Hedges, A. Paget
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Dalziel, James Henry Helme, Norval Watson
Barran, Rowland Hirst Davies,David (MontgomeryCo. Hemmerde, Edward George
Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)
Beck, A. Cecil Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henry, Charles S.
Bell, Richard Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Herbert.Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Bellairs, Carlyon Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Higham, John Sharp
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. Dickinson,W.H. (St.Pancras.N. Hobart, Sir Robert
Bennett, E. N. Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Berridge, T. H. D. Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall Holland, Sir William Henry
Bertram, Julius Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Holt, Richard Durning
Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bethell, T. It. (Essex, Maldon) Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Horniman, Emslie John
Billson, Alfred Erskine, David C. Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Essex, R. W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Brace, William Esslemont, George Birnie Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Bramsdon, T. A. Evans, Samuel T. Hyde, Claredon
Branch, James Eve, Harry Trelawney Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Brigg, John Everett, R. Lacey Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Brocklehurst, W. B. Fenwick, Charles Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Brodie, H. C, Ferens, T. R. Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)
Brooke, Stopford Findlay, Alexander Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh) Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bryce, J. Annan Fuller, John Michael F. Jones,William (Carnarvonshire
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fullerton, Hugh Kearley, Hudson E.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Furness, Sir Christopher Kekewich, Sir George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford.S. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn Laidlaw, Robert
Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Goddard, Daniel Ford Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster
Byles, William Pollard Gooch, George Peabody Lamb, Ernest H. (Rocheter)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lambert, George
Causton,Rt.Hn.RichrdKnight Griffith, Ellis J. Lamont, Norman

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

Noes, 120. (Division List No. 208.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis Pearson, SirW.D. (Colchester) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lehmann, R. C. Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)
Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Levy, Maurice Pickersgill, Edward Hare Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lewis, John Herbert Pirie, Duncan V. Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury)
Lough, Thomas Pollard, Dr. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Lupton, Arnold Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central) Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)
Lyell, Charles Henry Price, Robert John( Norfolk, E.) Thomasson, Franklin
Lynch, H. B. Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Thormpson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E
Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs) Priestley, W.E. B. (Bradford.E.) Tomkinson, James
Mackarness, Frederic C. Radford, G. H. Torrance, Sir A. M.
Maclean, Donald Rainy, A. Rolland Toulmin, George
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Raphael, Herbert. H. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Crae, George Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Ure, Alexander
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rees, J. D. Verney, F. W.
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Renton, Major Leslie Walters, John Tudor
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)
M'Micking, Major G. Robertson,Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Maddison, Frederick Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Mallet, Charley E. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Ward, W.Dudley( Southampton
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robinson, S. Waring, Walter
Markham, Arthur Basil Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston) Roe, Sir Thomas Wason,John Cathcart( Orkney)
Marnham, F. J. Rogers, F. E. Newman Waterlow, D. S.
Mason, A. E. W (Coventry) Ross, Charles Day Watt, Henry A.
Massie, J. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Weir. James Galloway
Menzies, Walter Samuel, Herbert-L. (Cleveland) White, George (Norfolk)
Molteno,Percy Alport Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Mond, A. Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Schwann,SirC.E.( Manchester) Whitehead, Rowland
Montgomery, H. G Scott, A. H.(AshtonunderLyne) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Seaverns, J. H. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Morrell, Philip Seely, Major J. B. Wiles, Thomas
Morse, L. L. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Morion, Alpheus Cleophas Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.) Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Myer, Horatio Sherwell, Arthur James Williamson, A.
Napier, T. B. Shipman, Dr. John G. Wills, Arthur Walters
Newnes, F (Notts Bastlaw) Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, Hon. C. H.W.(Hull,W.
Newnes Sir George (Swansea) Simon, John Allsebrook Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Nicholson.Charles.N (Doncast'r Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Norton. Capt. Cecil William Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Winfrey, R.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Spicer, Sir Albert Wood. T. M'Kinnon
Nuttall, Harry Granger, H. Y. Yoxall, James Henry
O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Partington, Oswald Steadman, W. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Strachey, Sir Edward Pease.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gill, A. H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Glover, Thomas
Arkwright, John Stanhope Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Ashley, W. W. Clynes, J. R. Helmsley, Viscount
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH. Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Balcarres. Lord Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H. A. E. Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds
Balfour, RtHn.A.J.(CityLond.) Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hill.SirClement (Shrewsbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Courthope, G. Loyd Hills, J. W.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S. Houston, Robert Paterson
Barnes, G. N. Craig, Captain James( Down, E.) Hudson, Walter
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Craik, Sir Henry Hunt. Rowland
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Crooks, William Jowett, F. W.
Bowerman, C. W. Dalrymple, Viscount Kennaway.Rt. Hon.Sir JohnH.
Bowles, G. Stewart Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.C'ol.W.
Boyle, Sir Edward Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull)
Bridgeman, W. Clive Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich
Bull, Sir William James Faber, George Denison (York) Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Faber. Capt.W. V. (Hants, W.) Lee, ArthurH.( Hants.,Fareham
Butcher, Samuel Henry Fardell, Sir T. George Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.
Carlile, E. Hildred Fell, Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Castlereagh, Viscount Fletcher, J. P. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Cave, George Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W. Gibbs, G. A. ('Bristol, West) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Macpherson, J. T. Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Thornton, Percy M.
Marks, H. H. (Kent) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Vincent. Col, Sir C. E. Howard
Meysey-Thompson, E. ( Salter, Arthur Clavell Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)
Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton Sandys, Lieut. -Col.Thos.Myles Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Walsh, Stephen
Morpeth, Viscount Seddon, J. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Muntz, Sir Philip A. Shackleton, David James Wardle, George J.
Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield) Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD. Williams. Col.R, (Dorset, W.)
O'Grady, J. Sloan, Thomas Henry Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
O'Neill," Hon. Robert Torrens Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton) Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)
Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend) Starkey, John R. Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Parker, James (Halifax) Stone, Sir Benjamin Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Parkes, Ebenezer Summerbell, T. Younger. George
Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel Sutherland, J. K.
Remnant, James Farquharson Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Talbot,Rt,Hn.J.G.(Oxf d Univ. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Alexander Acland - Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Roberts,S.(Slieffield,Ecclesall) Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)
Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter Thorne, William

Clause 11:

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Fenwick, Charles
Acland, Francis Dyke Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Ferens. T. R,
Agnew, George William Buxton,Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Ainsworth, John Stirling Byles, William Pollard Findlay. Alexander
Alden, Percy CarrGomm, H. W. Foster Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Allen.A Acland(Christehurch) Causton,Rt.HnRichard Knight Fuller, John Michael F.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Cawley, Sir Frederick Fullerton, Hugh
Armitage, R. Channing, Sir Francis Allston Furness, Sir Christopher
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Cheetham, John Frederick Gardner.Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R, Gill, A. H.
Asquith.Rt.Hon HerbertHenry Cleland, J. W. Gladstone,Rt. Hn HerbertJohn
Astbury, John Meir Clough, William Glover, Thomas
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Clynes, J. R. Goddard, Daniel Ford
Baker,Joseph A (Finsbury,E) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gooch. George Peabody
Barker, John Collins,SirWm J.(S.Pancras,W. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Barlow, JohnKmmott(Somerset Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,EGrinst'd Griffith. Ellis J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gulland. John W.
Barnes, G. N. Cory, Clifford John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.
Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) Cowan, W. H. Hall, Frederick
Beck, A. Cecil Craig, Herbert J(Tynemouth) Harcourt, Rt, Hon. Lewis
Bell, Richard Crooks, William Hardy. George A. (Suffolk)
Bellairs, Carlyon Crosfield, A. H. Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)
Benn,Sir J Williams(Devonp'rt Crossley. William J. Harmsworth R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh
Benn,W.(T'W'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Dalziel, James Henry Hart-Davies, T.
Bennett, E. N. Davies, David (MontgomeryCo. Harvey. A. C. G. (Rochdale)
Berridge, T. H. D. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.
Bertram, Julius Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harwood, George
Bethell,SirJ.H (Essex,Romf'rd Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.) Haslam. Lewis (Monmouth)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Ha worth, Arthur A.
Billson, Alfred Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Hazel. Dr. A. E.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Dickinson, W. H.(St.Pancras,N. Hedges, A. Paget
Bowerman, C. W. Duncan, C,(Barrow-in-Furness Helme, Norval Watson
Brace, William Dunne,MajorE Martin(Walsall) Hemmerde, Edward George
Bramsdon, T. A. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Branch, James Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Henry. Charles S.
Brigg, John Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon. S)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Elibank, Master of Herbert,T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Brodie, H. C. Erskine, David C. Higham, John Sharp
Brooke, Stopford Essex, R. W. Hobart, Sir Robert
Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Esslemont, George Birnie Hobhouse. Charles E. H.
Bryce, J. Annan Evans, Samuel T. Holland, Sir William Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Eve, Harry Trelawney Holt, Richard Durning
Buckmaster, Stanley O Everett, R. Lacey Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 300; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 209.)

Horniman, Emslic John Morton, Alpleus Cleophas Spicer, Sir Albert
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Myer, Horatio Stanger, H. Y.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Napier, T. B. Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)
Hudson, Walter Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Steadman, W. C.
Hut-ton, Alfred Eddison Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hyde, Clarendon Nicholson. Charles N.( Doncaster Strachey, Sir Edward
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Norton, Capt. Cecil William Straus, B. S (Mile End)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred Nussey, Thomas Willans Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Nuttall, Harry Summerbell, T.
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sutherland, J. E.
Jones,Sir I). Brynmor(Swansea) Parker, James (Halifax) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Partington, Oswald Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Jones,William (Carnarvonshire Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jowett, F. W. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tennant, Sir Ed ward( Salisbury
Kearley, Hudson E. Pearson.Sir W. D. (Colchester) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Kekewich, Sir George Philipps,J Wynford (Pembroke Thomas,Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)
Kineaid-Smith, Captain Philips, Owen C. (Pembroke) Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Laidlaw, Robert Pickersgill, Edward Hare Tomkinson, James
Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster) Pirie, Duncan V. Toulmin, George
Lamb, Ernest- H. (Rochester) Pollard, Dr. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lamont, Norman Price.C. E. (Erlinb'gh.Central) Ure. Alexander
Layland- Barratt, Franc is Price,Robert John( Norfolk, E.) Verney, F. W.
Lea,Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras,E.) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Walsh, Stephen
Lehmann, R. C. Priestley,W.E. B.( Bradford, E.) Walters. John Tudor
Lover, (Cheshire, Wirral) Radford, G. H. Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds. S.)
Levy, Maurice Rainy, A. Rolland Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)
Lewis..John Herbert Raphael, Herbert H. Ward. John (Stoke upon Trent)
Lough, Thomas Rea. Russell (Gloucester) Ward.W. Dudley(Southampton
Lupton, Arnold Rees, J. D. Wart Me, George J.
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Renton, Major Leslie Waring, Walter
Lyell, Charles Henry Richards,Thomas( W. Monm'th Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Lynch, H. B. Richards, T.F.( Wolverhsimpt'n Wason,John Catheart (Orkney)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Warerlow, D. S.
Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Watt, Henry A.
Mackarness, Frederic; C. Robertson, SirG. Scot t( Bradford Weir. James Gelioway
Maclean, Donald Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) White, George (Notfolk)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robinson, S. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Crae, George Robson, Sir William Snowdon White, Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Roe, Sir Thomas Whitehead, Rowland
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rogers. F. E. Newman Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)
M'Laren, H. I). (Stafford, W.) Rose, Charles Day Whittaker, Sir Thomas Paimer
M'Micking, Major G. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wiles, Thomas
Maddison, Frederick Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Mallet, Charles E. Samuel, S. M. (White-chapel) Williams,Lleweiyn( Carmarthen
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Schwann, (Duncan (Hyde) Williamson, A.
Markham, Arthur Basil Schwann,Sir C. K.(Manchester) Wills, Arthur Walters
Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston) Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)
Marnham, F. J. Seaverns, J. H. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Seely, Major J. B. Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Massie, J. Shackleton, David James Winfrey, R.
Menzies. Walter Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Molteno, Percy Alport Shaw. Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Yoxall. James Henry
Mond, A. Sherwell, Arthur James
Money, L. G. Chiozza Shipman, Dr. John G.
Montgomery, H. C. Silcock, Thomas Ball TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Simon, John Allsebrook Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Morrell, Philip" Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Morse, L. L. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
NOES.
Acland-Hood.RtHn.SirAlex.F. Bowles, G. Stewart Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell j Boyle, Sir Edward Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)
Anstruther-Gray, Major. Bridgeman, W. Clive Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Ark Wright, John Stanhope Bull, Sir William James Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Ashley; W. W. Burdett-Coutts, W. Courthope, G. Loyd
Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hon.SirH. Butcher, Samuel Henry Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S.)
Balfour.Rt HnA.J.(City Lond, ' Carlile, K. Hil Ired Craig.Captain James( Down, E.)
Banbury. Sir Frederick George Castlereagh, Viscount Craik, Sir Henry
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cave, George Dalrymple, Viscount
Barrie,H. T. (Londonderry.N.) Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Beckert, Hon. Gervase Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Faber, George Denison (York)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Faber, Capt.W. V. (Hants,W.)
Fardell, Sir T. George Middlemore, John Throgmorton Starkey, John R.
Fell, Arthur Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fletcher, J. S. Morpeth, Viscount Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxfd Univ.
Forster, Henry William Muntz, Sir Philip A. Thomson. W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield) Thorne, William
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. O'Grady, J. Thornton, Percy M.
Helmsley, Viscount Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Valentia, Viscount
Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's Parkes, Ebenezer Vincent, ('ol. Sir C. E. Howard
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Ratcliff, Major R. F. Walker, Col.W.H.(Lancashire)
Hills, J. W. Rawlinson.John Frederick Peel Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Houston, Robert Paterson Remnant, James Farquharson Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hunt, Rowland Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Willoughby dc Eresby, Lord
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W. Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)
King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lee.Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Salter, Arthur Clavell Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col. A.R. Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles Younger, George
Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Seddon, J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord
Macpherson, J. T. Sloan, Thomas Henry Edmund Talbot and Lord
Marks, H. H. (Kent) Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton) Balcarres.
Meysey-Thomson, E. C. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Clause 12:

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Essex, R. W.
Acland, Francis Dyke Buckmaster, Stanley O. Esslemont, George Birnie
Agnew, George William Burns, Rt. Hon. John Evans, Samuel T.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Eve, Harry Trelawney
Alden, Percy Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Everett, R. Lacey
Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch) Byles, William Pollard Fenwick, Charles
Allen, Charles P, (Stroud) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Ferens, T. R.
Armitage, R. Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Ferguson. R. C. Munro
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Cawley, Sir Frederick Findlay, Alexander
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cheetham, John Frederick Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter
Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R. Fuller, John Michael F.
Astbury, John Meir Cleland, J. W. Fullerton, Hugh
Baker Sir John (Portsmouth) Clough, William Furness, Sir Christopher
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.) Clynes, J. R. Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford.S.)
Barker, John Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gill, A. H.
Barlow,JohnEmmott (Somerset Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Gladstone. Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinsfd Glover, Thomas
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Goddard. Daniel Ford
Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.) Cory, Clifford John Gooch, George Peabody
Beck, A. Cecil Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Bellairs, Carlyon Cowan, W. H. Griffith, Ellis J.
Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonport Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) Gulland, John W.
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo. Crooks, William Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Bennett, E. N. Crosfield, A. H. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Berridge, T. H. D. Crossley, William J. Hall, Frederick
Bertram, Julius Dalziel, James Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Bethell Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd Davies, David (Montgomery Co Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)
Billson, Alfred Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithness-sh
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hart-Davies, T.
Bowerman, C. W. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Brace, William Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.
Bramsdon, T. A. Dickinson, W.H.(St,Pancras,N. Harwood, George
Branch, James Duncan.C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Brigg, John Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall Haworth, Arthur A.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Edwards, Clement Denbigh) Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Brodie, H. C. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hedges, A, Paget
Brooke, Stopford Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Helme, Norval Watson
Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh) Elibank, Master of Hemmerde, Edward George
Bryce, J. Annan Erskine, David C. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 289

Noes, 105. (Division List No. 210.)

Henry, Charles S. Money, L. G. Chiozza Simon, John Allsebrook
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.) Montgomery, H. G. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Higham, John Sharp Morrell, Philip Spicer, Sir Albert
Hobart, Sir Robert Morse, L. L. Stanger, H. Y.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Holland, Sir William Henry Myer, Horatio Steadman, W.C.
Holt, Richard Burning Napier, T. B. Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Horniman, Emslie John Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Strachey, Sir Edward
Horridge, Thomas Gardner Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncaster Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hudson, Walter Norton, Capt. Cecil William Sutherland, J. E.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Nussey, Thomas Willans Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hyde, Clarendon Nuttall, Harry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth) Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury)
Jacoby, Sir Alfred James Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Johnson, John (Gateshead) Partington, Oswald Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Thompson, J. W. H.(Somerset,E.
Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Tomkinson, James
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Toulmin, George
Jones,William (Carnarvonshire) Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kearley, Hudson E. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Ure, Alexander
Kekewich, Sir George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Verney, F. W.
Kincaid-Smith, Captain Pirie, Duncan V. Walsh, Stephen
Laidlaw, Robert Pollard, Dr. Walters, John Tudor
Lamb.Edmund G. (Leominster) Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central) Walton,SirJohn L. (Leeds, S.)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Price, Robert John( Norfolk, E.) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Lamont, Norman Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Priestley, W. E. B.( Bradford, E.) Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton
Lehmann, R. C. Radford, G. H. Wardle, George J.
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Rainy, A. Rolland Waring, Walter
Levy, Maurice Raphael, Herbert H. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Lewis, John Herbert Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Wason,JohnCathcart( Orkney)
Lough, Thomas Rees, J. D. Waterlow, D. S.
Lupton, Arnold Renton, Major Leslie Watt, Henry A.
Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th) Weir, James Galloway
Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) White, George (Norfolk)
Lynch, H. B. Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) White, Luke (York, E. H.)
Mackarness, Frederic C. Robinson, S. Whitehead, Rowland
Maclean, Donald Robson, Sir William Snowdon Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roe, Sir Thomas Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
M'Crae, George Rogers, F. E. Newman Wiles, Thomas
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rose, Charles Day Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Samuel.Herbert L.(Cleveland) Williamson, A.
M'Micking, Major G. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wills, Arthur Walters
Maddison, Frederick Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)
Mallet, Charles E. Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester) Wilson. John (Durham, Mid)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Markham, Arthur Basil Seaverns, J. H. Winfrey, R.
Marks.G.Croydon (Launceston) Seely, Major J. B. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Marnham, F. J. Shackleton, David James Yoxall, James Henry
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Massie, J. Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)
Menzies, Walter Sherwell, Arthur James TELLERS FOP. THE AYES—Mr.
Molteno, Percy Alport Shipman, Dr. John G. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Mond, A. Silcock, Thomas Ball Pease,
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Castlereagh, Viscount
Anstruther-Gray, Major Beckett, Hon. Gervase Cave, George
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bignold, Sir Arthur Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.
Ashley, W. W. Bowles, G. Stewart Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH. Boyle, Sir Edward Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A.(Worc.
Balcarres, Lord Bridgeman, W. Clive Channing, Sir Francis Allston
Balfour,Rt Hn A.J.(City Lond.) Bull, Sir William James Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burdett-Coutts, W. Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Butcher, Samuel Henry Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E
Barnes, G. N. Carlile, E. Hildred Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow
Courthope, G. Loyd Long,Col. Charles W. (Evesham Sloan, Thomas Henry
Craig,CharlesCurtis( Antrim,S.) Lonsdale, John Brownlee 8mith,F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)
Craig,Captain James(Down,E.) Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred Starkey, John R.
Craik, Sir Henry Macdonald, J. R.(Leicester) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Dalrymple, Viscount Macpherson, J. T. Summerbell, T.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Marks, H. H. (Kent) Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)
Faber, George Denison (York) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf 'dUniv.
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Middlemore, John Throgmorton Taylor. John W. (Durham)
Fardell, Sir T. George Mildmay, Francis Bingham Thomson,W. Mitchell-( Lanark)
Fell, Arthur Morpeth, Viscount Thorne, William
Fletcher, J. S. Muntz, Sir Philip A. Thornton, Percy M.
Forster, Henry William Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Gibbs.G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Grady, J. Walker,Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Helmsley, Viscount Parkes, Ebenezer Wards, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds Ratcliff, Major R. F. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hill,Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hills, J. W. Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampton Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Houston, Robert Paterson Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hunt, Rowland Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Younger, George
Kennaway, Rt.Hon.Sir.JohnH. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Kenyon-Slaney.Rt.Hn. Col. W. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) Salter, Arthur Clavell TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Lee, ArthurH.( Hants.,Fareham Seddon, J. Viscount Valentia.
Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col. A. R. Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorgeD.

Where upon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.