Commons Sitting of 5 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Central London Railway Bill.—As amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.
Clyde Navigation Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Clyde Navigation, "presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered upon Monday next.
Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]; Southend Water Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Harbour Authorities (Ireland) Bill.—Second Reading deferred from to-morrow till Monday, 17th June.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the District Committee of the First or Upper District of the county of Renfrew to construct and maintain water works and to supply water within their district; to authorise the County Council of the county of Renfrew to acquire the undertaking of the Busby Water Company and other lands and servitudes for the purposes of such water supply; to authorise and re quire the said county council to levy assessments and to borrow money for such water works, undertaking, and supply; to authorise the county council to acquire land for sewage purification works; and for other purposes."[Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords].
Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COMPANIES BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Calderhead, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Ditton; Kirkdale (three); and, West Derby (two); to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Southsea; and, Winkfield; to lie upon the Table.
  MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL MILK DEPOTS BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, against; to lie upon the Table.
  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  LAND JUDGE'S COURT (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th May; Mr. Clancy]; to
  652
  lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]

  MINES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of First Report of the. Royal Commission on Mines (Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices, Vol. 1) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALASIA.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence relating to the Convention with France, dated 20th October, 1906, respecting the New Hebrides [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3812 and 3813 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 1st June, 1907, respecting the addition of years to be assigned, for pension purposes, to the office of Senior Inspector under the Board of National Education in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL APPEAL [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of salaries and expenses incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal and to amend the Law relating to Appeals in Criminal Cases (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Payment for Christmas Overtime in Bradford Post Office.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Postmaster-General why certain Bradford postmen have not yet been paid for overtime which they worked on Friday, 28th December, and Saturday, 29th December, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.)It is not usual to pay postmen for overtime due to prolonged delivery (which

  653
  as a rule cannot be checked) except on certain days of extreme pressure at Christmas time. The 28th and 29th of December were not among these days. I regret that a decision on this case has been delayed owing to the official papers having been accidentally mislaid.

  Delivery of Indian Mail on June 1st.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Indian mail was in the hands of the Post Office before 11 a.m. on Saturday, and why no letters were delivered in the City earlier than 1.30 p.m., or newspapers before 4.55 p.m., even in cases where special arrangements for the delivery of newspapers are in existence.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers the Indian mail, which came to hand after 11 a.m., was exceptionally heavy, and, notwithstanding the employment of a large additional force, it was not possible to effect an earlier delivery. So far as the City was concerned the bulk of the letters were sent out by postmen who left the General Post Office between 12.45 and 1.20 p.m., and a number of them were delivered before 1.30. p.m. The hon. Member may rest assured that on occasions, such as the one under question, all possible steps are taken to ensure the delivery of the mails as soon as possible.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of John Maguire.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Maguire, Drumkeany, parish of Cloone, an evicted tenant on the Lauder estate, in county Leitrim; and, if so, will the same be investigated by an inspector.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of any application from the person referred to in the Question.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Bridget Craemar.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  654
  Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mrs. Bridget Craemar, Kiltynashinagh, Ballinamore, an evicted tenant on the Marsham estate, in county Leitrim; and, if so, will the same be investigated by an inspector.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this application, and have ascertained that the eviction took place in consequence of a dispute regarding the tenancy among members of the evicted tenant's family. The Commissioners have not succeeded in settling this dispute, and have, therefore, decided to postpone the further consideration of the application until they are dealing with the estate upon which the evicted farm is situate.

  Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will cause an inquiry to be made as to the alleged grievances from which Protestants, as such, suffer at the hands of their Catholic neighbours in those counties in Ireland where the Catholics are in a majority; and whether he will issue a Return showing the number of Protestants appointed on representative Irish Boards where the Catholics are in a majority, and of the number of Catholics appointed on Boards where the Protestants are in a majority.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I do not think it would be possible to undertake the inquiry which the hon. Member suggests. The Government have no information as to the religious persuasion of members of elected bodies in Ireland, and do not propose to make any inquiry on the subject.

  Sentence for Stealing Milk at Rutland.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of two brothers, Divers Horton and John Robert Horton, who were sentenced to three months' imprisonment each at the Rutland quarter sessions for stealing one pint of milk; and whether,

  655
  in view of the character of the sentence and of the fact that one of the prisoners has never been convicted before, he will, under the circumstances, remit the remainder of the sentence, seeing that these men have already been in prison six weeks.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No representation has been made to me in this case other than the Question of the hon. Member. I am making inquiry into it.

  Grant to Cornelius Cahill, of Clonoul, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Estates Commissioners will give a grant to Cornelius Cahill, of Clonoul, Croagh, in the county of Limerick, evicted tenant, to enable him to work his evicted farm, in which he has been reinstated by the landlord; and whether, seeing that there is little likelihood of an immediate sale of the estate by the landlord to the tenants, they will do so without waiting until a sale takes place.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have asked for the landlord's consent to an inspection of the holding with a view to arranging a sale to Cornelius Cahill. If a sale should be arranged the Commissioners will consider the question of making a grant to Cahill, otherwise they have no power to make such a grant.

  Guaranteed Loans to Colonies.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the precedents for guaranteeing loans to Colonies having full responsible government; and under what circumstances were each of these loans guaranteed.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Guarantees have been given in favour of three loans raised by New Zealand and three raised by Canada.
  New Zealand:—

  (1) A loan of £500,000 in 1857 (20 and 21 Vic., cap. 51) to provide for the payment of debts due by the
  656
  Colony and for the purchase of native lands;

  (2.) A loan of £500,000 in 1866 (29 and 30 Vic., cap. 104) for the purpose of expenses in connection with the New Zealand war, immigration, and other purposes;

  (3) A loan of £1,000,000 in 1870 (33 and 34 Vic., cap. 40) for the construction of roads, bridges, and other communications, and for the introduction of settlers.

  Canada:—

  (1) A loan of £3,000,000 in 1867 (30 Vic., cap. 16) for the construction of a railway connecting Quebec and Halifax;

  (2) A loan of £300,000 in 1869 (32 and 33 Vic., cap. 101) for the purchase of Rupert's Land from the Hudson Bay Company.

  (3) A loan of £3,600,000 in 1873 (36 and 37 Vic., cap. 45) for the construction of the Pacific Railway and the improvement and enlargement of the Canadian canals.

  This loan was, to the extent of £1,100,00, in lieu of a guaranteed loan of that amount which had been authorised in 1870 (33 and 34 Vic., cap. 82) for the construction of fortifications, but was not raised.

  The Domicile Act, 1861—Application to China.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Domicile Act of 1861 has been applied to China, including Shanghai.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The reply is in the negative.

  Boy Artificers as 5th Class Engine Room Artificers.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the boy artificers promoted to the fifth-class engine-room artificers, and sent to ships abroad, have been favourably reported upon; and whether they are being borne as additional to the usual complement, or in lieu of others whose time has expired.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The reports have not yet been received. These artificers are borne additional to complement.

  Engine-Room Artificers in the Navy—Supply of Candidates.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any difficulty is experienced in obtaining candidates for engine-room artificers; how many of them are expected to leave the naval service on pension during the present financial year, and what proportion of this number it is proposed to obtain from engineering shops in the country; and what is the percentage of failures among those now presenting themselves for entry.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No difficulty has been experienced in obtaining candidates. Taking the average of the last seven years, it is anticipated that about thirty engine-room artificers will complete time for pension during the present year. It is proposed to obtain about 30 per cent. of the number of entries required for the year from engineering shops in the country. The percentage of failures among candidates last year was twenty-six.

  Belfast Factories and the Truck Act.
  MR. DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the frequent deductions from the wages of employees in Belfast factories and workshops in violation of the provisions of the Truck Acts; and whether he will direct the local inspector of factories to see that the provisions of the Acts are more rigidly enforced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Complaints have been received with regard to the bonus system adopted in certain factories in this district, and a case was taken last year to test the legality of the system. In that case, Deane v. Wilson and Co., the High Court held that no violation of the Truck Acts had been committed. Apart from this question, which is now under the consideration of the Departmental Committee on the Truck Acts, I am not aware that there is any prevalence of
  658
  truck abuses in this district; but if the hon. Member will furnish me with the particulars of any cases that have been brought to his notice they shall be inquired into.

  Regulation of Motor Traffic.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, he can see his way to introduce a Bill dealing with the regulations affecting motor traffic, so that an opportunity may be given to the House of Commons and the public generally of discussing its provisions with a view to legislation next session.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to this Question. Looking to the statement made by the Prime Minister on Monday last, with reference to the business of the session, there would not seem to be any probability that time could be found for the discussion this year of such a Bill as that suggested. and, in these circumstances, it does not appear to me that there would be any advantage in its being introduced.

  Portrush Post Office Accommodation.
  COLONEL M'CALMONT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the inadequate accommodation for the public and officials in the Portrush post office; and when it is proposed to effect an improvement.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A site for the erection of a new post office has been acquired, and it is hoped that building operations will be begun shortly.

  Appointments for Telegraph Learners at Bristol.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telegraphs learners at Bristol, after waiting three years for appointment, have now been asked if they are prepared to leave that office in order to secure positions upon the establishment; and whether, seeing that a competitive examination is announced to be held at Bristol in July, 1907, for the post of

  659
  telegraph learners, he will state the reason for his decision to add to the staff of learners, in view of the fact that he cannot find vacancies for those already placed in the Bristol office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Certain telegraph learners at Bristol, whose promotion to the establishment at that office has been delayed longer than was anticipated, by reason of an unexpected dearth of vacancies, have been offered opportunities of early promotion elsewhere, but, with one exception, have preferred, to wait their turn at Bristol. The learnerships to be filled by examination in July will supply officers for appointment to the establishment, not now but some two years hence, and not affect the prospects of the existing learners.

  Vagrancy in Surrey.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the annoyance caused to the public in the county of Surrey by vagrants and, if not, whether he will ask for information from the local authorities in the county so that he may convince himself of the desirability, or not, of introducing legislation at an early date on the lines of the Report of the Departmental Commission on Vagrancy.
  MR. ARNOLD HERBERT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the annoy-

  Strength of the Royal Artillory on the 1st May, 1907.

  Officers.

  Warrant officers.

  Non-commissioned officers and men.

  Total.

  Royal Horse Artillery

  174

  9

  5,020

  5,203

  Royal Field Artillery

  908

  49

  24,254

  25,211

  Total: Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery

  1,082

  58

  29,274

  30,414

  Royal Garrison Artillery

  894

  83

  18,588

  19,565

  Royal Artillery Clerks

  —

  22

  230

  252

  Grand Total: Royal Artillery

  1,976

  163

  48,092

  50,231

  ance caused to the public in South Bucks by vagrants; and, if not, whether he will ask for information from the local authorities, particularly of Slough and Wycombe, so that he may convince himself of the desirability of introducing legislation at an early date on the lines of the Report of the Departmental Commission on Vagrancy.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I will answer these two Questions together. I am aware that annoyance is caused by vagrants in various parts of the country, and I do not think it necessary to obtain further information on the subject from the local authorities of the particular counties referred to. As I have stated on previous occasions, I am in communication with my right hon. friend the Home Secretary with regard to the Report of the Committee, but I do not think it will be practicable to propose legislation with repect to the matter this year.

  Strength of the Artillery.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery and the Royal Garrison Artillery respectively with the colours on 1st May.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as under, including India—

  Rates of Pay of the Territorial Cavalry.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether during the first two years of the Territorial Army there will be two rates of pay in the Territorial cavalry, i.e., the rate under which the recruits of the two previous years have been enlisted and that of the recruits of the current year; and how he proposes to make this a working arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Yes, Sir, there will be two rates of pay, as vested rights are recognised, under Section 28 (2) of the Bill, for the whole of a man's current engagement. The same conditions are not unknown in the Regular Army, and no serious difficulty need be anticipated.

  Civilian Buildings on Salisbury Plain.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War what decision has now been arrived at as to the advisability of providing civilian buildings in the nature of private residences, shops, stores, etc., on Government land at Salisbury Plain (see Hansard, 14th Febuary, 1907, page 298).
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matter is receiving careful consideration. I am not yet, however, in a position to make a statement on the subject.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Navy Supplies.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that nearly all the tinned meat supplied to the Army and Navy comes from foreign countries, because it can be supplied cheaper than meat grown in Great Britain, Ireland, or the Colonies, he will say whether the same rule applies to the various articles, as well as granite, used for the Navy, such as chains, anchors, furniture, and the many other necessary articles required by the Admiralty.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The hon. Gentleman will find a full statement of the Admiralty policy in my reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Fareham on 5th March last year. † But, as a matter of fact, I may add that the tinned meat consumed in the Navy is now purchased mainly from Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. HUNT: Does the Government buy on the principle of buying in the cheapest market for all these things, or does it not?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That Question is answered in the Reply given by me on 5th March last year.
  MR. HUNT: Could we have the Answer now? Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Answer he had given was in accordance with Parliamentary practice.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any orders for cable chains and anchors are at the present time placed abroad?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think so, but the right hon. Gentlemen might put the Question on the Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is in the Question."]

  Territorial Army—Embodiment.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed that embodiment for six months, in the case it general mobilisation, shall be a condition of enlistment for men for the proposed Territorial Army; if so, whether it is proposed to enforce such a condition; and, if such an intention exists, what specific provision for giving effect to it is included in the Bill now before the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): Men enlisting into the Territorial Force
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 80, 81.

  663
  will be liable under Clause 16 of the Bill to embodiment, which can be enforced under Clause 19. It is obviously impracticable to settle by statute or otherwise the period for which it may be necessary to embody either the whole or part of the Territorial Force, in the event of war.

  Volunteers' Corps Funds.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now say what will become of the assets and funds which certain Volunteer corps have accumulated by good management and economy.
  MR. HALDANE: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 5 of the Minute of the Finance Member of the Army Council in Command Paper No. 3370 for the Answer to this Question.

  Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited.
  Mr. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is in accordance with the Regulations and Orders for the Army that officers on full pay should be employed on the committee of management of the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited; and, if so, seeing that this is calculated to cause bias and lay such officers open to the suspicion of being influenced in the giving of garrison or regimental contracts, and with a view to securing open competition in the interests of the soldier, if he is prepared to take any action in the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: I explained to my hon. friend, in reply to a similar Question on the 28th November last, that the officers on full pay at present on the board of this society receive no remuneration for their services, and not one of them has any pecuniary interest in the business. These officers hold no shares, and are on the Committee of Management only for the very necessary purpose of looking after the interests of the soldiers.
  MR. LEA: These officers while looking after the society are drawing full pay from the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: Of course.

  Discharges from Woolwich.
  SIR J. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of men have been discharged during the last 12 months at Woolwich who have served over ten years.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of men discharged at Woolwich since the 1st January with over ten years service is 351. It would take a little time to obtain the number of men of the same service discharged during the last twelve months, but I will have the figures got out and sent to the hon. Member.
  SIR J. RANDLES: I presume the right hon. Gentleman has taken every possible step to reduce the discharges of men of long service?
  MR. HALDANEWe are taking every step. I have been down myself, going through the cases with the superintendent, and endeavouring to reduce them to the absolute minimum.

  Sir James Mackay.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government was consulted as to the appointment of Sir James Mackay to the late Colonial Conference.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): In the full Answer which the Secretary of State gave to a similar Question on 8th May, † he explained that he deputed Sir James Mackay to take his place at the Conference. He attended it as the Secretary of State's representative, and the question of consulting the Government of India did not arise.

  Zanzibar.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Report, for which he asked, as to the most convenient measures to be taken to abolish the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip, and also to abolish slavery altogether in the islands; and whether
  † See(4) Debates, clxxiv., 210,211.

  665
  he will state what the proposed measures are, and if they have been put into operation.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Report in question will not be received until about the end of June.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will action then follow?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I hope action will then follow; but I must remind my right hon. friend that action in this case involves expense, so that we must not only consider the views of the Colonial Office, but also our power of convincing the Treasury. But already we are eagerly engaged in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is expense to be allowed to stand in the way of the abolition of slavery?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not suggesting that. I was only pointing out that a consultation was necessary between the two Departments.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will repeat the Question next month.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Was not an absolute undertaking given in this matter?
  MR. J. WARD: Did this status of slavery exist during the late administration?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Transvaal Garrison.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed that a large voluntary force should be organised in the Transvaal; whether this suggestion comprises the raising of a Volunteer Force of artillery; whether the Transvaal Government have ordered, or propose to order, any reduction to be effected in the cost of the present Volunteer Forces of that Colony; and whether the Transvaal Government have given, or propose to give, instructions that any reduction
  666
  should be made in the South African Constabulary in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: While the Imperial troops in South Africa are maintained at their present strength it is obvious that no large Volunteer Force equipped, as the hon. Member suggests, with artillery, is needed for the maintenance of peace and order; and it is not proposed that any such force should be organised. In regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member, I must refer him to the Answer given by me to the hon. Member for Preston on 3rd June † and in regard to the last part of the Question, the Transvaal Government have not, so far as I am aware, as yet given any instructions for reductions in the Constabulary.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it the intention to allow the Boer Government to have artillery?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Question is couched in unfortunate language, and it has already been answered. If further information is required, the hon. and gallant Member will best consult public interests by giving notice of the Question.

  Nairobi Gaol.
  MR ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what improvements have recently been made in the gaol at Nairobi; and what improvements are in contemplation.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A sum of £5,000 has been provided on the Estimates for this year out of a total sum of £l5,029 required to build a new gaol suitable for European prisoners at Nairobi. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the building operations have been already commenced.
  MR. ASHLEY: I want to know what improvements have been recently effected there?
  MR. CHURCHILLwas unable to state what progress had been made.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have any complaints recently been
  † See pages 298–9

  667
  received from British prisoners in the Nairobi gaol?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Complaints are often received as to the accommodation and treatment of prisoners.
  MR. CROOKS: Is it not the fact that prisoners are never satisfied?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Very likely.

  The Transvaal Loan
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government or any member of the Government has received a petition or a memorial signed by over 100 Members urging them to elicit from General Botha an undertaking that the Chinese now in South Africa should be repatriated at the expiration of their licences; and whether he can give any assurance that the guarantee of the forthcoming loan to the Transvaal is not based on any such undertaking.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I know nothing of such a memorial or petition except from the columns of certain newspapers, and I would advise the hon. Baronet not to pay too much attention to silly rumours of this kind.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement, he can only ask a Question.

  Zulu Chiefs at St. Helena.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether twenty-two Zulus, with three chiefs, including Tilonko, who has presented a petition to the King showing that his sentence was illegal, have been deported to St. Helena from Natal; if so, whether the prisoners will be kept in St. Helena at the expense of the Imperial Government or of Natal; and whether he will lay upon the Table Papers showing the negotiations which have taken place between the Natal Government and His Majesty's Government regarding the deportations.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Twenty-five prisoners including Tilonko have been deported to St. Helena from Natal. The cost will be borne by the Government of Natal. Papers will be laid as soon as the necessary communications have been made to the Government of Natal.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYinquired if any addition was to be made to the St. Helena garrison?
  MR. CHURCHILL'Sreply was inaudible in the Press Gallery.

  Railways in Nigeria.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies when a definite statement as to the railway development in Nigeria may be expected.
  MR. CHURCHILL: We are still waiting for Sir Percy Girouard's Report.

  North Sea Fishery Investigations.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have decided to continue to participate in the North Sea Fishery investigations until July, l908, will he state what Foreign Governments will also participate in the investigations until that date.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The matter is not yet definitely settled.

  Anglo-Russian Treaty.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are negotiating a treaty or other form of understanding with the Russian Government; whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject to the House; and whether, before committing the country to such an agreement, he will consider the feelings of organised labour and those holding Liberal opinions regarding the relations of the Russian Government to its subjects.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is unable to make any statement

  669
  on this subject at present. But he cannot admit that internal affairs in Russia are relevant to any discussion of matters affecting the respective frontiers of the two countries with the object of preventing difficulties which might other-wise arise between them.
  *MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Am I to understand that the Governments are only negotiating on frontier questions and not on general questions?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That is what I have said.
  *MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs): Would not a good understanding with Russia be of advantage to all parties?
  MR. J. WARD: Are the two Governments negotiating?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: That was stated some time ago in this House.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the terms of reference to the Anglo-French Commission which has been recently considering questions arising out of the New Hebrides Convention; and when the Report will be published.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As my right hon. friend has already stated, the Anglo-French Committee assembled in order to arrange certain matters connected with the working of the Joint Court. The questions discussed comprised the salaries, leave allowances, etc., of the members of the Court, as provided for in Article 10, Section 4, of the Convention of October last. The arrangements suggested by the Committee are now being considered by the two Governments, and will be published if, and when, they are mutually accepted. Other matters connected with the Convention are discussed apart from the proceedings of this Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who were the members of the Anglo-French Commission which has been recently appointed to consider
  670
  questions connected with the New Hebrides.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Louis Mallet, C.B., Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Dr. F. Fitchell, Solicitor-General for New Zealand, represented His Majesty's Government on the Committee. The French Government were represented by Monsieur Weber and le Comte de Manneville.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date individuals are required by law to make their returns for the purpose of the assessment of income-tax; whether the law is the same in England and Scotland; and whether the practice in both countries is the same.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): Returns are required by law to be made within such period, not exceeding twenty-one days from the date of the notice requiring the return, as may be fixed by the notice. There is no statutory date for the issue of the notices, but the practice is to issue them during April and May both in England and Scotland, and to allow the full period of twenty-one days in both countries.

  Death Duties.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-chequer whether he is aware that persons succeeding to property, agreements for the sale of which have been made under The Irish Land Act, 1903, suffer hardship in being required to pay death duties cash down on the property as personalty, although the purchase price cannot be obtained and the owners are receiving only 3½per cent. interest on the capital sum pending the sanctioning of the advance; and whether, in such cases, the property can be treated as realty until the money is actually paid over, and one-eighth of the duty only charged until the capital sum is received, when the remainder of the duty should be collected.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is not the case that the property represented by an agreed sale of the kind described is

  671
  treated as personal property on which the estate duty must be paid in one sum. The Board of Inland Revenue are quite willing to accept payment by instalments in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 (8) of the Finance Act, 1894, pending completion of the sale. But the payment even of the instalments may sometimes be difficult for the responsible persons to provide, and, where this is the case, the Board, with the approval of the Treasury, would be disposed to say that the annual (or semi-annual) payments may be limited to the amount of interest due on the unpaid portion of the estate duty, until completion of the sale, when the whole amount of the estate duty outstanding should be paid out of the purchase money.

  Old Age Pensions.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Irish Council Bill is not to be proceeded with, he will consider the possibility of devoting the sum which would have been payable to Ireland by the Exchequer under that Bill to the fund, the nucleus of which is provided in the present year's Budget, for the purpose of old age pensions; and, if not, can he say to what purpose, if any, he intends to devote the sum which the change in the Government's programme will place at his disposal.
  MR. ASQUITH: No part of the sum in question would in any event have been a charge upon the revenue of the current financial year. I cannot at this date anticipate next year's Budget statement.

  Guaranteed Colonial Loans.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the occasions on and the circumstances under which the Imperial Government has guaranteed the loans of any self-governing Colony.
  MR. ASQUITH: Guarantees have been given in favour of three loans raised by New Zealand and three raised by Canada. New Zealand: (1) A loan of £500,000 in 1857 (20 and 21 Vict., cap. 51), to provide for the payment of the debts due by the Colony, and for the purchase of native lands; (2) a loan of £500,000 in 1866 (29
  672
  and 30 Vict., cap. 104), for the purpose of expenses in connection with the New Zealand war, immigration, and other purposes; (3) a loan of £1,000,000 in 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., cap. 40), for the construction of roads, bridges, and other communications, and for the introduction of settlers. Canada: (1) A loan of £3,000,000 in 1867 (30 Viet., cap. 16), for the construction of a railway connecting Quebec and Halifax; (2) a loan of £300,000 in 1869 (32 and 33 Vict., cap. 101), for the purchase of Rupert's Land from the Hudson Bay Company; (3) a loan of £3,600,000 in 1873 (36 and 37 Vict., cap. 45), for the construction of the Pacific Railway, and the improvement and enlargement of the Canadian canals. This loan was, to the extent of £1,100,000, in lieu of a guaranteed loan of that amount which had been authorised in 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., cap. 82), for the construction of fortifications, but was not raised.

  Alness River, Ross-shire.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what part of the Alness River, Ross-shire, is under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; is any part of the river leased; if so, what, part, to whom, at what rental, and for what period.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the salmon fishings in the River Alness ex adverso a part of the Coull Estate are let by the Commissioners of Woods to Mr. S. C. Munro, for a term of ten years, from Martinmas, 1900, at the rent of £6 per annum. This is the only part of the river which is at present under the control of the Commissioners.

  Assistant Clerks in the Civil Service.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps, if any, he proposes to take to alleviate the discontent amongst the new class assistant clerks in the Civil Service, seeing that a petition for the appointment of an inquiry into their case, which had been signed by a majority of the Members of this House, had been refused.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The pay and conditions of service of the assistant clerks of the new class have repeatedly received careful consideration in the last

  673
  few years, and I do not see my way to suggest any change.

  Case of Albert Bach.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can see his way to advise His Majesty to grant a free pardon to Albert Bach, who was sentenced by Sir Ralph Littler at the Middlesex Sessions on 9th January, 1904, to seven years penal servitude for the offence of receiving stolen goods to the value of £3 15s., in consequence of his age, and in view of the fact that he has all his life borne an excellent character.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Both I and my predecessor have repeatedly given most careful consideration to this case, but I regret that I have not found any sufficient grounds for recommending any interference on the convict's behalf. Articles forming part of the proceeds of three separate cases of housebreaking were discovered in his shop. I may add that a receiver of stolen goods who has a good reputation is for that reason a more dangerous criminal.
  MR. CLYNES: Did not the right hon. Gentleman himself state in this House recently that good character was a reason for imposing a light penalty?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a question for the Court.

  Case of William Tutt.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of William Tutt, who was arrested while on a visit to his mother, aged eighty-three, at Lidlington, Bedfordshire, on Tuesday, 28th May, and committed to prison at Bedford for three months on a warrant, dated 1st November, 1894, for shooting a hare on the Duke of Bedford's estate at Lidlington on 21st October, 1894; and whether, in view of the fact that this man has borne a good character in Lancashire during the whole of the intervening twelve and a half years, and that he has already been in prison eight
  674
  days, he can see his way to order Tutt's immediate release.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not yet sufficiently in possession of the facts of this case to come to a decision with regard to it, but I will communicate further with my hon. friend as soon as I can.

  Accidents in Mines and Quarries.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Report and evidence of the Royal Commission which has been considering the health and safety of miners, can be laid upon the Table forthwith in order to prevent the delay which would occur owing to the decision of the Government that the scope of the Commission shall be enlarged by reporting upon accidents in quarries.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The first Report of the Commission, which deals with the use of breathing appliances, will be presented to Parliament this week, and I am informed that the first volume of evidence is likely to be ready next week. A large number of questions connected with coal mines, upon which evidence is now being taken, remain to be dealt with by the Commission, and I understand that they intend to present their Report upon these before proceeding to that part of their inquiry which relates to quarries.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any additional members have been appointed to the Royal Commission on Coal Mines, in view of the enlargement of the scope of the reference so as to include the question of accidents in quarries.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer is in the negative. The question of appointing additional members will be considered when the Commission are about to enter on that part of their inquiry which relates to quarries.

  The Home Office and Messrs-Kynoch
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that about nine months ago the magazines of Messrs. Kynoch, Limited, were seized and shut

  675
  down by order of the Home Office, on the ground that certain explosives manufactured by them at their Ark low works contained ingredients contrary to the licence issued by the Home Office, and that during that period Messrs. Kynoch have been precluded from manufacturing this explosive; if he is aware that, during this period, certain English firms have manufactured explosives containing the same ingredient as that used by Messrs. Kynoch; whether he is aware that explosives manufactured abroad, and which also contain the same ingredient, have been, and are being, imported into this country; if he is not aware of these facts, will he have inquiries made as to whether English manufacturers are using this ingredient; and, if so, does he intend to take the same action against them as he has already taken against Messrs. Kynoch.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No magazines have been seized, there being no power under the Explosives Act to do so. Explosives of unauthorised composition have been seized in certain magazines belonging to Messrs. Kynoch, but this in no way prevents these magazines from being used for the storage of other explosives, so long as the seized explosives are not removed, and the total quantity for which the magazine is licensed is not exceeded. Messrs. Kynoch have in no way been precluded from manufacturing explosives of authorised composition. One other English firm has admitted the use of chloride of mercury, and its case is being dealt with. Inquiry is being made in a third case. But, so far as I am aware, no other manufacturer has added an unauthorised ingredient since the Kynoch seizure took place. Three foreign firms have been detected in sending to this country explosives containing mercury, and large consignments have been returned to the factories of origin, whereby the firms in question have been put to great expense. Two of these firms have given guarantees that the offence will not be repeated. I shall make no distinction between Messrs. Kynoch and any other firm discovered to be acting in a similar manner.
  MR. MOONEY: Arising out of that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this. He said one other English firm had been dealt with. What does he moan by
  676
  "being dealt with"? Is that English firm being dealt with in the same way as Kynoch's. Has the magazine been seized?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Action is being taken, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of seeing exactly what is being done. I do not say that in the case I am referring to they acted in precisely the same way as Messrs. Kynoch.
  MR. MOONEY: Arising out of that, the allegation which I have made against the Home Office is that they treated Messrs. Kynoch in a distinct and separate manner from the other manufacturers, and in view of that statement I wish to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying that this other firm is being dealt with. Is he going to treat that firm in the same manner?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There will be a prosecution. Steps are being taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the Home Office seized the magazines of those other manufacturers in the same way that they seized those of Messrs. Kynoch?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No. I am informed that when the use of this substance was brought to the knowledge of the responsible owners of the works they withdrew all the explosives which contained the particular ingredient. Messrs. Kynoch, on the other hand, as I am informed, certainly declined to admit that the ingredient was there at all, and resisted all steps taken.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not a fact that for weeks and weeks, not to speak of months, it was known to the Inspectors of the Home Office and to the right hon. Gentleman that other manufacturers besides Messrs. Kynoch were manufacturing with this ingredient, and will he explain why the delay had taken place?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already explained that legal proceedings were taken against Messrs. Kynoch, and judgment at quarter sessions has only recently been obtained. It was necessary to know how the law stood before dealing with the others.
  MR. MOONEY: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman does he intend to

  677
  take the same action against this firm as was taken aginst Kynoch's. I wish to know was it not in his power, at the time of taking action against Kynoch's to take action under a section of the Act of Parliament which would have done away with the necessity of seizing the magazines and so giving an advantage to their trade rivals. Is that the way the right hon. Gentleman is going to proceed against the English firm?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It is rather difficult to answer a Question of that kind, because the circumstances might be different. I have already said that I wish to make no distinction between Messrs. Kynoch and any other firm acting in a similar manner.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it intended to take action against the English firm under the same section under which Messrs. Kynoch wore proceeded against?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is so.
  Mr. DOLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chamberlain, the Chairman of Kynoch's, made a public statement that the reason they were proceeded against was that they were an Irish firm?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It is quite impossible to make a more ridiculous statement.
  Mr. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the charge against Messrs. Kynoch was one of using an infinitesimal quantity of perchloride of mercury (one in 100,000 parts of the finished article) as an antiseptic or steriliser in the manufacture of high explosives, for the purpose of preserving them against decomposition under varying climatic changes; whether perchloride of mercury is the most powerful antiseptic known for this purpose, and is habitually used in England, Germany, and other countries for this purpose; and whether he can give the number of fatal accidents which have occurred in the following factories during the years 1896 to 1905, inclusive: Nobel's, Curtis and Harvey, National Explosives, Cotton Powder Company, Eley's, War Office, Kynoeh.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The quantity of mercuric chloride mentioned is quite
  678
  sufficient to vitiate the official test. The use of antiseptic in gelatinised explosives is unnecessary. Mercury is not habitually used in this country, and there is reason to believe that elsewhere it is used for the purpose of masking the heat test rather than as an antiseptic. The number of accidents at the factories mentioned can be obtained from the annual reports of His Majesty's inspectors of explosives, but I may say at once that the result of such comparison is quite favourable to. Kynoch's. The danger of the use of mercuric chloride, however, arises principally after the explosive leaves the factory, because it lies in the keeping and using of the explosive rather than in its manufacture.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask how is it that when other Members ask a Question which involves some figures with regard to industrial matters in England the right hon. Gentleman is always willing to give thorn, yet he does not do so now, although the matter is within knowledge of his Department?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Do I understand ' the hon. Member wants the figures?
  Mr. MOONEY: Yes.
  *Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not receive them in time to embody them in my Answer, but I now have them here and they are as follows: —

  Years 1896 to 1905.

  Company.

  No. of Accidents.

  No. of persona killed

  The Cotton Powder Co., Ltd.

  3

  4

  Curtis & Harvey Ltd. -

  5

  14

  Eley Brothers, Ltd.

  1

  1

  Kynoch, Ltd.

  2

  3

  The National Explosives Co., Ltd.

  2

  5

  Nobel's Explosives Co., Ltd.

  6

  13

  Waltham Abbey

  1

  3

  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not a fact that during the last ten years not a single life was lost in the Arklow factory?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I take it that it is so from the hon. Member.

  Manchester Betting Prosesutions.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he is aware that a man named Townley is now serving a month's imprisonment for making a bet with a bookmaker in Manchester, and that police officers are employed to make bets in connection with these prosecutions; whether he has any record to show that street betting, or nuisance arising there from, has been diminished by the operations of the recent Act; and, if so, whether it is proposed to extend legislation to other classes and places so as to prevent gambling which is not now touched by the law.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am making inquiry into the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but in any event I do not see my way at present to propose any amendment of the Act of last session. Experience of the working of that Act has as yet been short, but I have no reason to doubt that it is having a very good effect.

  Water Supply Sources.
  Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to state his intentions with regard to the representations made to him last session as to the urgent need for an inquiry into the necessity for the protection and development of water-gathering grounds and other sources of water supply, the allocation of such sources on a comprehensive and equitable basis, and the general control and supervision of this subject by a central and properly qualified body or Department.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): I have had under consideration the recommendations made in the third Report of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, with regard to the prevention of the pollution of water and other matters such as those referred to in the Question, and I had
  680
  hoped that it would be practicable for me to propose legislation on the subject during the present session. I am afraid, however, that, looking to the demands on the time of the House for other business, it will not be possible to proceed with the matter this year; but I shall not lose sight of it.

  Pauper Settlements.
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the desirability of creating a more uniform system of settlement as between England and Scotland, in the case of pauper lunatics, having regard to the fact that such persons are at present removable from Scotland into England, while irremovable from England into Scotland.
  Mr. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that there are difficulties in the way of removing pauper lunatics from England to Scotland, although such cases are removed from Scotland to England. It is, I think, desirable that there should be uniformity in this matter; but the whole subject of settlement and removal is included in those which are referred to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law for consideration and report, and it seems to me that, pending their Report, the particular point referred to in the Question could not well be dealt with by legislation.

  Wincanton Hospital Scheme.
  MR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an order of the Local Government Board has boon made, after inquiry held, whereby the rural district of Wincanton, Somerset, has been constituted a hospital district and an isolation hospital established; whether there is any other purely rural districts in which such a hospital has been permanently provided; whether he is aware that the almost unanimous feeling in the district is opposed to the establishment of a permanent hospital; and whether, in view of the evidence in opposition offer at the inquiry, he is prepared to reconsider this Order.
  Mr. JOHN BURNS: An appeal was made to the Local Government Board against an Order of the Somersetshire

  681
  County Council constituting the Wincanton rural district a hospital district under the Isolation Hospitals Acts. The Board, after local inquiry, issued an Order dismissing the appeal, and I cannot now reopen the matter. There have been several cases in which rural districts have been constituted hospital districts under the Isolation Hospitals Acts, and many more in which permanent hospitals for infectious disease have been established in such districts under the Public Health Acts.

  Case of Robert Kerrison.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Brixton prison, on the 23rd May, on the body of Robert Kerrison, who was sentenced to a month's hard labour for failing to perform his allotted task at the Chelsea casual ward; whether he is aware that a witness at the inquested stated that Kerrison was not a strong man, and that the deceased had told him he was unable to break stones; and whether he will make inquiries of the prison authorities and prison medical officer as to the man's state of health and strength when he arrived at the prison, and the length of time which elapsed between the man's failure to perform the task and his becoming ill.
  Mr. JOHN BURNS: I have sent for a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest in this case, and on receipt of them I will consider the suggestions made in the Question.

  South Kensington College of Science.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the names of those appointed to represent the Board of Education on the governing body of the new College of Science at South Kensington.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna, Monmouthshire, N.): I hope to be in a position to announce the names next week.

  Trained Teachers
  Mr. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the total number of trained teachers at present employed in Church of England,
  682
  Catholic, Wesleyan, and council schools respectively; what number of persons were entitled to enter training colleges as the result of the last King's Scholarship examination; and what was the number of places available for them in Church, Catholic, Wesleyan, and undenominational colleges respectively.
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. friend will put down his Question for Monday next, I will give him all the information in the possession of the Board.

  Welsh Education Board.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the representatives of 17,000 Welsh Calvinistic Methodists at Mold, to call his attention to the satisfactory manner in which the Central Welsh Board has carried on the duties of inspection and examination of intermediate schools, and to the desirability of strengthening the authority of the Board by entrusting to it the entire inspection of such schools; and what action he proposes to take in view of this and other manifestations of the feeling in Wales in regard to this matter.
  Mr. McKENNA: The relations between the Central Welsh Board and the Board of Education are receiving my careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  The Judiciary.
  Mr. CAVE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the powers conferred upon His Majesty by Section 18 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and Section 6 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, to appoint, on an Address by both Houses of Parliament, additional Judges of the High Court of Justice have been fully exercised, or in what manner and to what extent the same have been exercised; and, if not, whether, in view of the present serious congestion of business in the King's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal, His Majesty's Government will recommend Parliament to present such an address.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.): The matter is still under consideration.

  Tuberculosis in Pigs.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the recent action by Messrs. Boyd, of Carnmoney, against the Corporation of Belfast for the wrongful seizure of two pig carcases said to be affected with tuberculosis; and if, in view of that litigation, ho will appoint a veterinary surgeon to whom such cases in Scotland can be referred, rather than to the Law Courts, which entail delay and expense on traders.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The case referred to by my hon. friend has not been brought under my notice. It would not be possible without legislation to compel cither traders or corporations to refer such questions to an arbiter, and I do not see my way to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number

  Name of Vessel.

  Number of cases detected.

  Number of such cases where penalties were imposed.

  Number of such cases where accused went to prison.

  F.C."Brenda"

  19

  18

  8

  F.C."Minna"

  9

  9

  3

  F.C."Freya"

  3

  2

  —

  F.C."Vigilant"

  2

  2

  —

  Totals

  33

  31

  11

  Beith Academy.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the public school known as Beith Academy has had advanced classes in which pupils and pupil teachers are trained for University and training college, that it is proposed to abolish these classes, that this is being done for the benefit of a fee-paying school governed by a board that is not publicly elected, and that the educational opportunities of the working classes of Beith will be there.
  684
  of trawlers prosecuted for illegal trawling in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1906, distinguishing the nationality of each.
  Mr. SINCLAIR: During 1906 the masters of nine trawling vessels were prosecuted for trawling in the Moray Firth, and all the vessels carried the Norwegian flag.

  Illegal Trawling Prosecutions in 1906.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many prosecutions for illegal trawling were instituted during the year ending 31st December, 1906, on information given by the commander of each Fishory Board cruiser, indicating the cases in which penalties were imposed and the cases in which the offenders elected to go to prison.
  Mr. SINCLAIR: The following is the information desired by the hon. Member:—
  by diminished; and whether he intends to take any action to prevent this breach of the principle of public control.
  Mr. SINCLAIR: The Beith Academy is under the control of a popularly elected body, viz., the school board of the parish of Beith, and as any changes which may have been made in the curriculum of the school must have been authorised by them, these changes cannot be regarded as a breach of the principle of public control.

  Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of] Penalties) Bill.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the unanimity amongst the Scottish Members on both sides of the House as to the desirability of passing the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) (Application of Penalties) Bill, can he arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken.
  Mr. SINCLAIR: In view of the favour with which this small and uncontentious Bill is regarded on both sides of the House, I hope that the House may consent to read it a second time without discussion; and it will be put down for an early day with that end in view.

  Irish Land Purchase in Disturbed Districts.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have dealt with sales of any estates out of their proper order because of local disorder or intimidation, or whether the estates are dealt with in order of rotation as the agreements are lodged; and whether any, and, if so, how many, estates are at present being dealt with out of order of lodgment of applications.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.): The Estates Commissioners deal with sales in the order of priority in which agreements for purchase are lodged, as provided by Regulation No. 1 of the Regulations dated 13th February, 1906. The Commissioners have not dealt with estates out of their proper order because of disorder or intimidation, but in six cases in which they have intervened as conciliators between landlord and tenant under the Eighth Regulation, they have, in order to facilitate a settlement, dealt with the Cases without regard to priority of application. In twenty-one other cases the Commissioners have, in pursuance of Regulation No. 1, accelerated the sanction of the advances for reasons peculiar to the particular cases.

  Athenry Disturbance.
  Captain CRAIG: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the house of a publican named Duddy has been
  686
  fired into at Athenry; if any arrests have been made; and if this district is in a peaceable condition.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have already, on the 29th of last month, † stated the facts of this case in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for the Rye Division. No arrests have been made. I have more than once stated that the district of Athenry is not in a satisfactory condition.
  Captain CRAIG: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that an attack was made on Pat Smyth, process server, in Athenry; that he was cut on the head and deprived of a revolver which he was obliged to carry for his own protection; and what steps the police are taking in the matter.
  Mr. BIRRELL: About four o'clock in the afternoon of 24th May, Patrick Smyth, who had a slight cut on the head, reported to the police that ho had been assaulted by two men near Athenry. At first he made no mention of a revolver, but said that his stick was taken from him. Subsequently ho said that his revolver was taken. Smyth informed the police that ho was unable to identify his assailants. He was not sober at the time of the alleged assault.

  Killemadeema Raid for Arms.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if ho is aware that a party of masked men on 20th May raided the houses of a man in the employment of Lord Clancarty, and five others, at Killemadeema, near Loughrea, find carried off their arms; if any arrests have been made; and if this district is in a satisfactory condition.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that no offence of the nature described was committed on or about the 20th May. The Question is probably meant to refer to offences committed in the locality named on 9th May, and as to that I would refer to my Answer to the hon. Member for the Rye Division on 29th of last month. † No arrests have been made. This is one of the districts
  † See(4) Debates, clxxiv., 1554.

  687
  in the west of Ireland the condition of which is not satisfactory.

  Broadford (Clare) Disturbance.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on Thursday night, 23rd May, the house of Daniel Malony, in the Broadford district, county Clare, was fired into; have any arrests been made; and is it the intention of the Government to afford this man adequate protection.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Two men have been arrested upon the charge mentioned in the Question, and the proceedings are pending. The police have taken adequate measures for Malony's protection.
  Captain DONELAN: In connection with all these Questions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, outside the alleged trifling assault on a process server, anybody has suffered the slightest personal injury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.

  Kanturk Extra Police Tax.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he had seen a copy of the resolution of the Kanturk Rural District Council protesting against the tax for extra police charged upon the district, is he aware that upon a certain part of the district the tax amounts to 8 ½d. in the pound and in another to 4 ¾d.; and whether, seeing that white gloves were presented to the chairman of the East Riding of Cork County at the last sessions as a recognition of the crimelessness of the district, he will say what is the explanation for the imposition of this charge and under whose authority is the charge made.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, from which it appears that the charge for extra police involves a temporary increase in the rates to the amount stated. The charge in question is in respect of the half year ending 31st March, 1906. In November, 1905, the district of New market was in a state of disturbance, and it was found necessary to send an extra force of twelve men of the Reserve for the purpose of restoring
  688
  order. By the end of the following March the state of the district had improved, and the extra force was then reduced to throe men. The extra force was sent to the disturbed area under the authority of the Irish Government, and the charge followed under statute as a matter of course.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as proof of the crimeless condition and general good order of this district, the Judges have of late been frequently presented with white gloves?
  Mr. BIRRELLsaid he believed that that was so, but nevertheless special circumstances had arisen which necessitated giving this police protection.

  Deductions for Irish County Council Grants.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communications have passed between the Irish Office and the Treasury on the subject of the recent deductions from grants to county councils in Ireland in respect to the Land Act finance; and whether he can state when an opportunity for the discussion of this matter will be afforded.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Irish Government and the Treasury are in communication upon the subject referred to in the Question, and I hope that either my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury or myself will shortly be in a position to make a statement in the matter to the House. I have no doubt that if desired the Government will give facilities for a discussion of the matter.

  Caheroyan Grazing Disputes.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the notices or letters, sent by the honorary secretary of the Athenry Town Tenants League to each of the grazing tenants on the Caheroyan estate in April last, contained the specific announcement that fifty men had been enrolled to clear the lands in the event of the tenant refusing to surrender his rights in his farm; whether, in view of the fact that the whole of the grazing

  689
  tenants on this estate were forced to surrender their holdings owing to the threat contained in the said letter and to the active intimidation and boycotting which followed, he will take steps to prevent these farms being parcelled out amongst any persons who either participated in the intimidation referred to or is a member of the Athenry Town Tenants Association; and whether he intends to issue instructions for the prosecution of the honorary secretary and members of the Athenry Town Tenants Association for issuing the intimidating letter referred to.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that notices to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question were delivered which purported to have come from the person named. As regards the second part of the Question; I would refer to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division on 14th May † The local police have endeavoured to procure evidence of the printing and publication of the notices referred to, but so far without success.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the law officers as to whether there is a good case for prosecuting the persons indicated in the Question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I have not.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: If evidence as to handwriting is forthcoming, will proceedings be instituted against the secretary?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If such evidence is forthcoming it will be laid before the law officers.

  Loughrea Intimidation Prosecution.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by a police sergeant during the hearing of a charge at Loughrea, on 16th May, of intimidation against graziers, in which he stated that some of the prisoners, on being arrested, said they had a perfect right to act as they had, as they had the Government at their back; and what
  † See(4) Debates, clxxiv., 790–800.
  690
  steps he intends to take to remove this idea.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that in the case referred to a police sergeant gave evidence that when the offence was being committed a man in the crowd made a remark to the effect stated in the Question. The fact that prosecutions have been instituted in this and similar cases seems to supply a sufficient answer to the latter part of the Question.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the feeling that the Government is in sympathy with these cattle raiding operations is rapidly growing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of anything of the kind.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Allow me to inform the right hon. Gentleman that it is the case.

  The Government and Grazing Farm Disputes— Mr. Fagan's Speech.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a speech of Mr. James Fagan, a leading local Nationalist, delivered at Carrick-on-Shannon, in which he said that unless his hearers were prepared to boycott the holders of grass farms there was no use passing resolutions, and that they had the sympathy of the English Government on their side, and ended by stating that he knew that the Chief Secretary was heart and soul with them in the movement to get rid of the graziers; arid whether he will take stops, either by steps in this House, or by protecting graziers, or by prohibiting the Estates Commissioners from selling boycotted estates to the tenants, to remove this widely prevalent idea.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that Mr. Fagan is reported by a local newspaper to have used language to the effect stated in the Question, but the police have no evidence that such language was used. As regards the latter part of the Question, it will be sufficient to say that prosecutions have been instituted in all cases in which there was sufficient evidence, and a number of prosecutions are are now pending. I have repeatedly

  691
  stated that full protection is being afforded to graziers in the exercise of their legal rights. The position of the Estates Commissioners in the matter is stated in my reply to a previous Question to which I have already called the hon. Member's notice.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked when the state of affairs would be arrived at which would be of sufficient seriousness to justify the right hon. Gentleman in rescinding the order with reference to the Estates Commissioners.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I must undertake the responsibility of that matter myself.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made from the Bench by a justice of the peace at Athenry, in a case in which certain persons were charged with intimidation and violence with regard to grazing farms, in which he said that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them to agitate for the grass lands, and asked if he was expected to condemn men for what the Chief Secretary had told them to do; and what steps he proposes to take with reference to this magistrate.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the similar Question put by the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division on Thursday last.†

  Irish Exports and Imports.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the statistics of Irish imports and exports for 1905 will be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture had expected that the Report on Irish imports and exports for 1905 would be ready by now, but owing to additional work involved in the preparation of the Report, its completion has been delayed. The Department hope to have the Report completed in the course
  † See pp. 93–4.
  692
  of a few weeks, but cannot name a precise date.

  Congestion in Ireland
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Dudley to inquire into the question of congestion in Ireland will be issued; and whether it is the intention of the Government to promote legislation on the lines of the Irish Land Bill at present before the House.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland may confidently be expected towards the close of the present year. The hon. Member will have learnt from the Prime Minister's recent statement that it is the intention of the Government to introduce this session, and as soon as possible, a Bill dealing with the question of the evicted tenants. It is obvious that the Government cannot undertake to introduce during the present session a measure for the amendment of Irish land legislation generally; but after the Government have had the advantage of studying the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission it is intended to introduce a Bill amending the existing laws.

  Edenderry School Teachers' Residence.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the teachers' residence connected with Edenderry National School, Portadown, county Armagh, was built from public funds; do the Commissioners of National Education pay part of the interest on the money borrowed; is the house at present let at a profit; and, if so, to whom does the profit go.
  Mr. BIRRELL: A portion of the cost of building the teachers' residence in question was provided by means of a loan from the State, the animal charge for the repayment of which has been regularly met. So long as the house was exclusively occupied as a teachers' residence the Commissioners of National Education contributed, in accordance with their regulations, a moiety of the annual charge in repayment of the loan. Since February, 1903, the house has not been

  693
  occupied exclusively as a teachers' residence, and the Commissioners have therefore withheld their contribution. The Commissioners have no knowledge as to the present occupancy of the house, but the manager has informed them that the recently appointed teacher is at liberty to occupy it. Until it is so occupied, the Commissioners will not renew their contribution.
  MR. SLOANasked the right hon. Gentleman how he could account for the fact that the Commissioners had no knowledge of who occupied the teachers' house.
  Mr. BIRRELLI cannot account for the ignorance of the Commissioners.
  Mr. SLOANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries.
  Mr. BIERELLsaid ho would do so. The Commissioners said that although they did not know who the present occupier was they were informed that the recently appointed teacher was at liberty to occupy.
  Mr. SLOANwished to know how this house was occupied by a person whom the authorities knew nothing about
  Mr. BIRRELLagain promised to make inquiries.

  Holywood Urban District Council Surcharges.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has boon called to certain surcharges, amounting to over £380, which have been made by the Local Government Board's auditor against certain members of the Holywood, county Down, Urban District Council; and whether, in view of the fact that the surcharges being made; has given rise to recrimination amongst the councillors and the ratepayers concerned, he will order an independent inquiry into all the circumstances connected with these surcharges.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not yet received a report of the surcharges referred to in the (Question. Any district councillors or
  694
  ratepayers who may be aggrieved by the auditor's decision can appeal against the surcharges to the Court of King's Bench, and thus secure a review of the decision by an independent tribunal.

  College of Science, South Kensington.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the names of those appointed by the Crown to the governing body of the new College of Science at South Kensington.
  Mr. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend hopes to be in a position to give the names next week.

  Education (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether ho can now say when the House may expect the Second Reading stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am afraid I am not in a position to name a date for the Second Reading of this Bill.

  Licensing Bill.
  *SIR. J. RANDLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of introducing the Licensing Bill before the end of this session, with a view to its consideration during the Autumn.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.
  *Sir J. RANDLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister the advisability of allowing conventions of friends of temperance to consider the Bill and perhaps in this way save Parliamentary time next session by preventing the introduction next year of an abortive measure?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Pacific Islanders' Protection Act.
  MRS. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether ho proposes to introduce this session a Bill to amend the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The Bill will be introduced shortly, but the precise date cannot yet be fixed.

Women on Scottish Boards.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is great disappointment in Scotland that the Qualification of Women (County and Borough Councils) Bill does not apply to Scotland, where for many years women have worked on school boards and parish councils; and whether ho can see his way to remedy this defect during the passage of the Bill in another place or in this House.
Mr. ASQUITH: The Scottish law covering this subject is somewhat different from the English law and, therefore, it has been necessary to prepare a separate though generally similar Bill for the case of Scotland. That Bill is ready and will shortly be introduced into the House of Lords.

Government Contracts and Trade Unionists
MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether firms which refuse to employ men because of their membership in a trade union, and which are engaged on Government contract work, are acting consistently with the terms on which Government contracts are made and Government Departments administered; and whether firms which exclude workmen for the exercise of a legal right will be excluded in respect to future Government contracts.
Mr. ASQUITH: So far as I am aware, Government contracts do not contain any stipulation with regard to the subject of the Question. The matter seems to me to be one which might with advantage be considered by the Departmental Committee on Government contracts.

Transvaal Loan Bill.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Bill to sanction the Transvaal Loan will be introduced.
Mr. ASQUITH: I cannot yet name a date. The Bill would have to be preceded by a Financial Resolution, and I imagine that it would not be introduced until the Transvaal legislature had passed its own measure on the subject.

Public Accounts Committee Report.
Mr. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House upon what date the promised debate on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee will be taken.
Mr. ASQUITH: No Sir, I cannot yet fix a date.

LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that the Land Values (Scotland) Bill had not yet been printed, and whether he could give any precedent for a Government Bill of great importance read a first time, and the order for it being printed being given, remaining unprinted for more than three weeks.
Mr. ASQUITH: I am not able at a moment's notice to give any precedents. The Bill will, I believe, be circulated immediately.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask you, Sir, whether it is not a very unusual and very inconvenient practice that an important Government Bill should be read a first time and should remain so long unprinted?
*Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a matter over which I have any control. It is undesirable that the delay should be unreasonably prolonged. The important matter seems to me to be that there should be a sufficient interval after the Bill is circulated and before the Second Reading.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 179.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Vaccination Bill): Mr. Munro Ferguson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Vaccination Bill): Mr. Ashton.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Public Health Bill): Mr. Ellis Griffith; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Health Bill): Dr. Cooper.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Public Rights of Way (No. 2) Bill: Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Member (in respect of the Municipal Elections Bill): Mr. Middlemore.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
Mr. Brodie, Mr. Hills, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Tennant, and Mr. Walters nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 13:—
MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)moved to amend subsection (1) in order to provide that "every man of the Territorial Force shall on
698
enlistment undergo a preliminary period of continuous training of not less than two months in the case of the infantry and of three months in the cases of the cavalry and field artillery." He said these were far-reaching proposals, and the attitude of the Secretary of State for War towards them would be a test of the sincerity of his proposals for making the Auxiliary Army an effective fighting force. There could be little doubt that the Territorial Army under this Bill would be in almost all essentials unfit for the purposes of war. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the second line should be so trained that it could be made fit to fight within a reasonable period in the event of war. To that end he proposed that every recruit upon enlistment should have at least an elementary military training. Unless that preliminary training were given, the Territorial Army would not be able to take full advantage of the period of annual training, which should be devoted to tactical and practical field exercises. If this period of preliminary training was exacted, the Territorial Force, even if it was not an efficient fighting machine, would be a potential force requiring only an annual polish to make it more efficient, and, in any event, it would be a valuable reservoir of men trained to a certain extent upon which the country could draw in case of emergency. Another advantage of the preliminary training would be the removal of an uncertain liability, and the substitution for it of an immediate liability which it would be much easier for the recruit to accept. Uncertainty as to the future was a source of danger. It was disliked by the employers and commanding officers whom he had consulted were unanimous in the opinion that the recruit when he enlisted ought to understand he would have to undergo a certain period of training. In the Swiss Territorial Army the period of the soldier's training had been altered in the direction of lengthening the preliminary training, and diminishing the length of the annual training. That plan was more convenient for the population, and enabled them to get over the first serious liability and reduce the drain upon their time in subsequent years. In Switzerland sixty-five days training was the minimum necessary for infantry, ninety days for cavalry, and seventy-five days

699
for artillery. But with seventy-five days training the Swiss field artillery were admitted by competent observers to be not as efficient as they should be. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that we should have good artillery, and that nothing short of the best would do. In the course of a discussion at the Royal United Institution the right hon. Gentleman said the Swiss had an organised force of all arms containing artillery of which they were not ashamed. They had done that by a preliminary period of training which they thought was inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman was proposing only fifteen days annual training, with a, vague and indefinite period of preliminary training. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what period of preliminary training he proposed to give? Upon what experience did he base the length of the preliminary training which ho proposed to give? The only example in this country was the Lancashire Field Artillery. But they had, in addition to twenty-eight days preliminary training, fifty-six days training every year, and 33 per cent. of their strength were Regulars. Even with those advantages he thought they maintained the minimum of efficiency which would justify the right hon. Gentleman in establishing any system of Volunteer Field Artillery for the Territorial Army. If the Amendment were accepted, they would have to face a probable reduction of the number of the Territorial Army as contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman. His reply to that was, he should face the consequences with absolute equanimity, because a small force comparatively efficient was worth more than an untrained mob, however numerous. Personally he had never had any idea what the Secretary for War wanted with this mysterious number of 300,000 men. He might have some vast plan, but he rather doubted it. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a round number which was to cover all branches after he had finished his scheme, although if these changes were to be earned out, his round number would, he thought, be considerably decreased. In any event whether or not there would be a certain reduction in the strength of the paper force which was called the Territorial Army was comparatively unimportant. Whatever the result in that direction something of the kind proposed in the
700
Amendment was absolutely essential if the Territorial Army was to have any fighting value at all, and even if it was to have any value as a reservoir from which the country could draw for the purpose of reinforcing the Regular Army in time of war. He did not wish to dogmatise as to the amount of preliminary training to be given. He had put forward the figures in his Amendment for the purpose of argument. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee what preliminary training he proposed to give. If so, he would gladly welcome the announcement and withdraw the Amendment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to enlighten them on that point.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 11, line 32, to leave out all the words after 'shall,' to the end of line 4 on page 12, and insert the words, 'on enlistment, undergo a preliminary period of continuous training of not less than two months in the case of the infantry and of three months in the cases of the cavalry and field artillery.' "— (Mr. Arthur Lee.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)said the hon. Gentleman had stated his criticism to the clause as it stood in a very moderate way. It was without precedent to put into an Act the purpose of which was to confer military powers provisions limiting the discretion of the authorities as to the standard of training. The standard of training varied very much from generation to generation, and was never embodied in detail in these Acts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, truly enough, that ho had put down two months and three months as a basis of criticism and as a standard which he thought would be a proper standard. It must be remembered, first of all, that this was a force primarily for home defence, and that it consisted of people who were giving their services on a purely voluntary basis. The Amendment implied that no cavalry force was worth anything unless it had had a training of three months' continuous work. Would the right hon. Member for Dover endorse that? A great deal had been heard lately of what an efficient force the Yeomanry was, and yet by this Amendment

701
it would appear the Yeomanry were no good, because they had not had three months' continuous recruit-training. The principle of a Volunteer army was to get what training they could from the men consistent with their following their ordinary avocations. The class of young men whom he hoped to get in the Territorial Army would not be able to give throe months for continuous training, and if he insisted upon three months' continuous training it would cut down the force to one-tenth. It was not young men who were unemployed that ho was aiming at. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that if they could got the standard asked for in the Amendment they would get better-trained soldiers; but a man who could afford to give three or six months to training had better become a professional soldier. In the Territorial Force the Government asked the manhood of the nation to come forward for home defence and to give as much time to training as the men could spare. The amount of training must be sufficient to make the men useful for the purpose the Government had in view. The question of training was being worked out in great detail just now by the General Staff, and the hon. Member might rely upon it that the War Office would get as much training as they could from these men of the Territorial Army. They would have to attend a certain number of drills, but the authorities had never yet been able to get continuous training for such a long period as that now suggested from Volunteers. It was no use talking of the Territorial Force as if it were to have a large regular training and full preparation for war in time of peace. Its very purpose was that, while there was a large expeditionary force at home, these people might be embodied, and as much time as possible would be do voted to putting them through the mill. The continuous training he contemplated should not be less than six months before they took the field. The Government hoped to have a large part of the expeditionary force at borne and available in the meantime. The Government relied upon this embodying training, which was to commence on general mobilisation, in order to make the training as a whole satisfactory. But the recruit training would certainly be better than the Volunteers got at the present time. The artillery training would be as good as the War
702
Office could make it. The hon. Member, who was a distinguished artillery soldier, held strong views on the subject of training Volunteer artillery. But educated men, the skilled artisans whom they hoped to get, would learn more quickly than the ordinary recruit in the Regular artillery. He had always thought, and he had said before, that about the matter of artillery training there was a vast amount of misapprehension in the House. A skilled man would learn in a far shorter time than the unskilled man. It was no use taking as a standard the time required for training Regular soldiers.
Mr. ARTHUR LEEsaid he had not brought up the question of the Regular Artillery. He gave the only analogy there was to Volunteer Artillery, the Lancashire Field Artillery, which consisted of the educated men to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
MR. HALDANEsaid that was Militia artillery, a very different class. The Honourable Artillery Company gave an example of a force which it was well worth while trying to reproduce. Ho was quite aware that the artillery problem was the most difficult, and it would probably require a long time before they could produce anything of a good standard, but he relied much on this, that his advisors and those with whom ho was dealing in connection with Volunteer artillery were of opinion that they could produce something well worth having in this force. As, therefore, they intended to have Volunteer artillery in the force, they would be acting very foolishly if they fixed conditions which would shut out the class of men on whom they relied most. That was why it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
*Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman showed the inconvenience of discussing the Bill in its present shape. It might be, as the right hon. Gentleman told them, that certain reasons of convenience prescribed a limitation with regard to training for the purposes of the Bill, but the real question they had to consider was whether there was any evidence in the history of the world that this amount of training would suffice to enable men so trained to

703
be successful in war. To that question, one of the most material in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had not addressed himself. It was obvious that some period of training must be necessary to make a soldier efficient for war, whether five years or five days, but from start to finish there was no indication in the Bill what that period of training was to be. They were asked to pledge the country to a great deal more than was in the Bill. Not only were they to be pledged to all the expenditure disclosed, and the further expenditure which would be disclosed in connection with the Territorial Army, but they were tacitly pledging the country to something much more important, to putting these men in the place of a Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was no intention of putting Volunteer artillery in the place of Regular artillery. Let them judge. During the last two years the establishment of Royal Artillery alone had gone down by over 4,000 men. There was to be a further reduction of the Royal Artillery, and the establishment of Infantry bad in the last two years decreased by 13,000 men, and further decreases were promised. More important still was the decrease in the strength which was going on at the present moment. The establishment even now, in the Army estimate for this year, did not correspond to the strength.
MR. HALDANE: That is because of your own three-year system.
*Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that surely strengthened his point.
Me. HALDANE: No.
*Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give any guarantee that he would make good any reduction below the establishment? The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question whether he intended to replace the fall below the establishment which was now taking place, said no. They were undoubtedly diminishing the Regular Army, and also the quasi-Regulars, the Militia, and putting in their stead something else. Was it not a fair thing, then, for his hon. friend to ask what were the qualifications for war of the man that were being put in the place of the men got rid of? The right hon.
704
Gentleman had cited the opinions of his professional advisers as to the question of Volunteer artillery. Those opinions were quite new, at any rate, and not only that, but they wore diametrically opposed in essence and word to the opinions that had been expressed to himself by the soldiers by whom he had had the honour to be advised. There was this, too, in favour of the earlier opinion, that it was in conformity with the universal practice of every nation in the world. He could not find that Volunteer artillery had played any great part in war, as the hon. and gallant Member for Abercomby had said. The world's campaigns showed that the training of the artillery had been the pre-eminent consideration which had tended towards success in the battlefield. The Swiss Artillery had been cited. There was a large amount of military opinion that even the Swiss artillery was far below the standard that ought to be maintained by them and below that of any other European Continental country, yet their training was incomparably ahead of anything the Government were proposing to give our own troops. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them fairly and squarely before the debate closed what he proposed to give in the way of training. It was not a matter of detail. It was a matter of primary importance. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what was the minimum training that was to be given to these troops at an expense of £3,000,000?The right hon. Gentleman had told them quite seriously that his advisers relied entirely on the six months training to be given on the outbreak of war. That proposal required a more elaborate defence than it had received. He did not deny the right hon. Gentleman the gift of imagination, but they must consider, too, whether they were providing a force which would render us independent of the men with this training, or want of training. Who had told the right hon. Gentleman that the training would be adequate for the tremendous ordeal of battle? Who were his advisers in the matter? Were the best soldiers in Europe and Asia wrong in regard to training? The Swiss infantry course was an annual course, and it had been lately increased—["No"]—he was perfectly right, but whether it had or had not been increased, it was vastly in

705
excess of anything provided for the Territorial Army. He could only see one explanation of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what he really proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma. He had stated the minimum of what he imagined would be agreeable to the persons who were to be brought into training, but who were not to be trained in preparation for war. If the latter training were insisted on the right hon. Gentleman would lose a large number of recruits whom he expected to obtain. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to be more frank and to tell the Committee what it was he really proposed. The Committee should remember also that it was not dealing merely with the words of the clause, but with the state of things that was to exist in the future, when the country would have to rely more than ever before on the new soldiers to be created under the Bill. They were incurring an immense responsibility in replacing the present force by a class of troops who were to receive a training which was inadequate in the opinion of every military authority in the world, and for whose organisation on the lines suggested there was no military precedent in any other country in the world.
MAJOR SEELY: congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his reappearance in the debates, and submitted a correction of his statement with regard to the Swiss army. The Swiss law had not yet been made operative, and might not become so, because it was the subject of a referendum, and it might not be carried. That fact showed that the Swiss were not of one mind as to the necessity of increasing the short training their troops now had. It was suggested by hon. Members opposite that the Secretary for War was proposing to create an army with a wholly inadequate period of training, the suggestion being that the training should extend over a period of two or throe months. In his opinion, hon. Members seemed to be using the arguments not only of the martinet, but of the pedagogue. It seemed to be forgotten that in a voluntary army the more training given did not mean that the more efficient the soldier became, because they did not get the same men. None but the idle rich, the inefficient, or
706
the occupants of the casual wards could possibly spare two or three months to absent themselves from their regular employment to serve in the Army on a voluntary basis under such a system.
Mr. ARTHUR LEEsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not do his argument justice. He was not suggesting a training of two or three months, but a longer preliminary training, and he had pointed out that the Swiss were increasing their preliminary training in order to decrease the subsequent training.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he was dealing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that they must have a longer period than three months training. Those who talked idly of France and Germany did not recognise that they did not get the same man, and that if they had this longer training they could not get anyone except the man who was out of a job to undertake the position. He agreed that it was desirable that the recruit should have a longer period of training than the man who had been trained; but, after all, the man who succeeded in peace was the man who succeeded in war. The same qualities that made for success in peace made for success in war, and the country must fight its battles with the best of its population if it meant to win. They could not, therefore, get men to give up long periods of time for training, for if they did they would be elbowed out of their situations by other men who were not serving; and, therefore, in considering the other armies of the world hon. Members must never forget the salient feature which nullified the conclusions they were endeavouring to draw. We were an insular Power, and hon. Members must admit that 160,000 men could cope with any kind of raid. When the moment of danger came our Territoral Army could be mobilised, and by the time the force of 160,000 men left our shores the Army would have had more training than the Swiss Army, which was admittedly efficient. The teaching of the ''Blue Water" doctrine meant in such an event that we should have more time in which to train that part of the Army which was not to be sent to the seat of war across the sea. Again, there was the argument of the Empire, which seemed to be forgotten by

707
hon. Members. What about the Colonial artillery? If it was true that no Army was worth creating or maintaining unless it was trained for a period of years, what became of our co-operation with the Colonists? In the South African war it was proved that long preparation in organisation was necessary, but that long preparation and training for the individual became less and less necessary as scientific weapons increased in accuracy. In the days of Rome, where the soldiers fought shoulder to shoulder, it might have been necessary to train for a prolonged period, but nowadays the soldier had first to be endowed with courage, common sense, and confidence in his leader. It was the character of the soldier far more than his training that came uppermost in war. That fact had been proved in every recent war, and most of all in the Russo-Japanese war. Japanese troops with short training were opposed to Russian troops who had enjoyed a prolonged period of training. To measure the value of an army, therefore, by the number of days training which the soldier had received was the most futile method of gauging its strength. Hon. Members should not forget the Colonial aspect of the problem, for it was likely that the Colonists would be inclined to resent the theory that the help they would bring to the Imperial Power would be nugatory. He admitted that the recruit's training should be for a longer period than in the case of the trained man. Ours was the only Army in the world in which trained men were required to train as long in the later years of their service as in the earlier. While he disagreed as to the value of troops raised on this basis, he thought that a longer period of training for recruits would be advisable.
*Mr. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that while he agreed with much that had been said by the mover of the Amendment, still he agreed with what had been said with regard to the length of training. The matter of training was of some importance. He believed that if so long a period of training were insisted on the class which now enlisted in the Yeomanry would be lost, which in his opinion would be a great misfortune to the country. Certainly the class of men who joined the yeomanry in the country districts would
708
not be drawn into the net. Such man might gamble on the necessity of a possible six months mobilisation, but he did not think they would accept the responsibility for the long training suggested. He, however, quite realised the value of it, and so far as ho personally was concerned, he would vote for compulsion and a long training. But he rose particularly to urge the Secretary of State to insure as far as possible that when this Order in Council was drafted, there should be as little rigidity in its provision as possible. He was not sure that the authorities at the War Offices even now realised how different were the conditions in different Yeomanry regiments, and even in different squadrons of the same regiment. At the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman was aware, the two days of squadron training were sometimes performed separately from the permanent duty. That was no doubt of great convenience to those regiments which drew their recruits from towns and populous places where the squadron districts were comparatively small, but if the right hon. Gentleman had had experience of three districts with which he was connected, which divided between them all the seaboard of Devon and Cornwall, he would see how difficult it would be to gather men together to perform squadron training at other times of the year than that at which they performed their permanent duty. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that latitude was given to such squadrons as those to perform their squadron and permanent training at a time convenient to themselves. He would be sorry to see the time for permanent training curtailed, unless the recruits came up for a longer period of training for the first year.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he thought the Committee wore indebted to the hon. Member for raising this point, but he thought the Secretary of State was more than usually vague in his reply. Hs had told the Committee that this was a Bill of detail, yet when any one of these points were put to him, he and his advisers were silent. Owing to the Bill having to be passed under the closure rule it was impossible to discuss all the important points, therefore he thought the Secretary of

709
State should give some indication of the Government's view. He quite agreed that it would be better to have a scale suited to the various districts, but in that regard the right hon. Gentleman had raised the question of a lengthened training and had not given the Committee any indication whether it was essential to have, in this Territorial Force a long training in the first year with shortening intervals of training in subsequent years, or whether it should be on the present Militia basis. These were questions which everyone in the country was desirous of having answered. They wished to know the amount of pay, the fines a man would have to pay if he desired to contract out of his engagement, and what were to be the terms of service for infantry and artillery. Beyond the broad outlines of the general scheme nothing had been vouchsafed to the Committee. He could not follow the reasoning of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division that with modern weapons of precision the men required less training. His experience had been that with modern and efficient weapons they were bound to give the men a longer training to familiarise themselves with them. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's policy and conclusions the Committee ought to know, and it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he intended to give the recruits of the whole of the Army a proper period of training during the first year, and that after that they would have sufficient training every year to keep them up to the mark. The right hon. Gentleman said these men were to be trained for home defence, but he also expressed the pious hope that on the outbreak of war a certain proportion of them would volunteer for active service. This clause touched the very root of the question. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to train the Territorial Force for service at home or abroad? It was quite a different matter training local artillery, say, on the coast of Devon or Cornwall or elsewhere on our coasts, from training them to take a place in war by the side of the Regular troops in some other part of the world. They had had great difficulty in eliciting from the right
710
hon. Gentleman that he hoped that men would volunteer for active service abroad. On a former occasion he had said that he hoped men would volunteer by brigades or by divisions, but that was a false hope, and he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman knew it. With winter training and summer training he could only expect to get some fragments from different parts of the country and not the whole of one division or brigade from one county association. And how did the right hon. Gentleman intend to combine the forces without destroying the cohesion of the corps, or whatever he liked to call it? The question of training in regard to that particular point, undoubtedly ought to be made clear to the Committee. Had the War Office in their mind's eye that the present Militia should be asked to join on the understanding that the service would be much the same as hitherto, which had been found satisfactory to that force? Would Volunteers be asked to do much the same as they had done in the past? And the Yeomanry, why were they to be revolutionised? It would shorten the debates if the Secretary for War would state how far the War Office had arrived at an approximate idea of what was intended under this scheme.
Mr. WYNDHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman had, so far, had only one supporter for his policy of silence on, this very vital question. The preliminary training of the Home Army was perhaps one of the most important matters contained in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. What did he say about it in the Bill? He said that the question of whether there was to be training at all as distinguished from drill was to be a matter to be decided, aye or no, by an Order in Council, and so far as drills were concerned it was to be prescribed at some future time. But he attached more importance to continuous training than to intermittent drill, and as to that there was not one word in the Bill, and when the right hon. Gentleman replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, they were as much in the dark as when they read the Bill, and they wondered what the intentions

711
of the Government were. They asked for something more explicit than had yet been vouchsafed to them. If this preliminary training was to be longer than the annual training, how long would it be? That was a riddle very hard to answer by those who had studied the Bill, because the annual training was to be not less than eight days and not more than fifteen, though it might be extended to thirty days or reduced to nothing at all. A preliminary training which was to be longer than a figure with so many variations in it did not give them anything like the assurance which they required, and which he thought they must press for before the debate came to a conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division believed that training was now of far less importance than it was in the past.
MAJOR SEELY: By comparison with the past.
Mr. WYNDHAMsaid he traversed altogether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement that with better weapons less training was required. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman said less drill in the barrack-yard, loss manual exercise and less goose step, he agreed with him, but when he said less training was required he differed from him, and he thought everybody else would differ from him. The better the weapon, the longer the range, and the flatter the trajectory, the more extended would have to be the formation, and it was by training only that the men could learn to follow the group leader, the group leader the captain, and the captain the indications given by signal whispered along the extended line.
MAJOR SEELY: The Canadians managed to do it at Paardeberg.
Mr. WYNDHAMsaid that was an isolated instance, and Lord Bacon said that argument from single instances was a puerile affair. He was not at Paardeberg, but he had no doubt the Canadians did uncommonly well there. He did not argue the matter on single instances. At Waterloo, where there
712
was a narrow front, the need of drill was enormous, because of the narrow compass in which the regiments could be deployed. The need for training in order to move troops over an extended line was very great, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep in mind the necessity for continuous training and believe that it was more important, especially in the case of the Auxiliary Forces, than a number of sentry drills. He might state that by adding three extra days to the nineteen days annual training, in some regiments results were obtained proportionately far better than could be expected from merely adding three days. He did not think it lay with the hon. Member to criticise the proposal of his hon. friend unless he took into account the fact that it created a new problem for which some solution would have to be found, and for which none was found in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, or in the speeches he had made. The Secretary for War had created a great gap between the regular Army, which was to send out an expeditionary force, and the Territorial Force, which was not to receive adequate training at all until war broke out. There was the expeditionary force of 160,000 men, and there was nothing else until they came to the Territorial Army, which was to be drilled, artillery, cavalry, and infantry, for eight or fifteen days. That gap was created by the Bill, which abolished the Militia and brought the Yeomanry down to the Volunteer basis. Before this measure was introduced the Yeomanry were trained from sixteen to nineteen days, and now it was proposed to reduce it to fifteen days. The Government had reduced their pay and cut off a large class of men who were teachable, and therefore it did not lie with the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the attempt they were making to secure something behind the first line trained and fit to take the field. By insisting on uniformity, by getting rid of the Militia, and treating the Yeomanry and Volunteers as one, the right hon. Gentleman would leave them with no support for their first line. That was what the right hon. Gentleman called organising in two lines instead of three. The Opposition held that it was exposing the country to great peril, and

713
that public safety demanded that adequate training should be given in the first year to the men who entered the Territorial Force.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was not a supporter of the Bill, but he certainly supported it against this Amendment. He did not complain of the action of the Opposition on this question, because it was impossible to expect them to shut out from the debate the grounds on which they supported the Amendment. He agreed in the main with what his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had said so far as the infantry of the Territorial Army was concerned, but not in regard to the cavalry. In this discussion "the gap" had played a great part, and he agreed largely with what had been said upon that subject. In his opinion, by this new scheme they were tending to get rid of the Volunteer and Yeomanry recruit of the kind they had known in the past, and they were now classing as Regulars a number of men who were not Regulars at all He regretted that naval opinion had not been represented at all in a debate which had bristled with naval heresies. The Secretary of State played into his assailants' hands by speaking of this force over and over again as one intended for home defence, That it was not, and it Was a mere sham to pretend that it was. A portion of it, which was to be more highly organised, was intended to garrison certain posts. A portion was to be organised as coast defence troops to repel small landings, but the force rested upon the acceptance of the naval view that serious invasion of this country was impossible so long as we held command of the sea. All the earlier speeches of the Secretary of State pointed to the view held by the Elgin Commission and the Esher Committee, that this force was intended to be one on which we could draw for the support of the fighting force across oho sea. His hon. and gallant friend required this force not for home defence, but for providing a fighting Army. Where he agreed absolutely with the Secretary of State in opposing this Amendment was where he told them that it was his wish to get from the people of this country various forms of service suitable to various classes of the population. He did not find that
714
elasticity in the Bill, however; he found undue rigidity. They found this complaint expressed at the Colonial Conference, when Mr. Deakin said—
"In Australia we have been subject to mockery, because we have followed closely the methods of the Imperial force. As fast as they Germanised we Germanised."
The tendency was more and more towards stereotyping the present civilian force into one which was a sort of sham Regular force called a Territorial Army instead of Volunteers. By this plan the Secretary of State for War was running the risk of making "the gap" more obvious than it was before, and ho was placing his Territorial Army upon an inferior German basis instead of getting for the Volunteers the old and best class of recruits, and keeping that military spirit of the civil population which was the real source upon which we should draw in war. That was the danger which he felt. They ought to fight against uniformity of training for different portions of the forces. Both the Bill and the Amendment were open to criticism upon that ground. As regarded the cavalry, were they not in danger of treating the yeoman—who was an excellent recruit, as good in his way as they could get—in this Bill and under this Amendment as if the question between a week's training and fifteen or eighteen days training made all the difference whether they had got a cavalry soldier or not? Let them not substitute Yeomanry for cavalry for a large portion of the duties of cavalry in the field. The cavalry was a costly force, and there was a great danger that the cavalry would be cut down and the Yeomanry employed. They could not afford to rely upon leaving the duties of cavalry in the field to men who only received the Yeomanry training. They wanted to keep the Yeomanry recruit; he was a valuable asset; but he was not a trained cavalry soldier. He (Sir Charles Dilke) felt that it was his duty to take every opportunity of insisting that they needed Regular Cavalry and Regular Mounted Infantry in battalions, as recommended by the Elgin Commission, and they needed the Yeomanry behind them to provide the men when there was pressure in time of war. He himself had been fighting against the rigidity of the provisions of the Bill. If they adopted uniform and inelastic provisions they would

715
lose valuable material by losing the present class of recruits for the Volunteers. They must shape the Bill, as regarded the terms of service, in such a way that it would give them the present class of recruits. He opposed the Amendment because it was inelastic, and not because he was a supporter of the Bill, which was open to the same objection.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in agreement with a great deal of what the right hon. Baronet had said. There was no truth more obvious, but more often forgotten and more necessary to repeat, than the truth that there was an immense variety in the degrees of training and preparation which they had to give to different parts of the Army. Some part of the matériel of the Army required immense preparation, other parts could be improvised. Some part of the personnel of the Army required an immense amount of training, but some part of it could be employed under proper organisation, in conjunction with the highly trained part of the force, with a relatively insignificant period of work. On the Third Reading it would be most important and proper that the House should make a survey of what the military force would be under the Bill, based on the plan that would then be elaborated, and compare it with the military force at our disposal at the present time, or as it might be made on the basis of the existing organisation. It would not be desirable to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, and his hon. and gallant friend desired to ask leave to withdraw it. But he thought the Secretary of State for War should have elaborated a little more such views as he might have, even provisionally, as to the amount of training which he could give to the Territorial Army.
Mr. ARTHUR LEEsaid he had put down the Amendment for the purpose of discussion. He was sorry that the Secretary of State for War had not been able to make a definite statement. Meantime, as the discussion had served its purpose, he asked leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*Mr. COURTHOPEmoved to omit Subsection (a), which re-
716
quired that every man of the Territorial Force should—
"if so provided by Order in Council, be trained at such places within the United Kingdom, at such times, and for such periods, not exceeding in the whole the number of days specified by the Order in Council, as may be prescribed, and may for that purpose be called out once or oftener."
He said that the previous Amendment aimed at an ideal which, if it could be reached, would be most desirable, but it would undoubtedly require some little compulsion which the present Government was not prepared to accede to. The Amendment which he now moved went rather to the other extreme. It left out all questions of ideal training, and came down to the practical details of the present situation. The previous night he had referred to a point which the rank and file of the present Volunteers were afraid of. He now wished to point out another feature of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme which, unless explained, was likely not only to deter the present Volunteers from remaining on as soldiers in the Territorial Army, but to deter from joining that army recruits of the class who now joined the Volunteers. The men in the Volunteer Force were afraid of the proposal contained in the subsection which he proposed to omit. They said, "We will give, up a week or a fortnight, either part or the whole of our annual holidays, in annual training, but it is quite impossible for us, not from unwillingness, but from the conditions of our employment, to come out twice a year in the first year of service, once for recruit training, and subsequently for annual training." He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean would agree with him that it was desirable, if they could, to keep the present class of recruits they got for the Volunteers. The class of recruits who now entered the Militia would, if the right hon. Gentleman's scheme succeeded, go into the nucleus third battalions. They would not, he took it, go into the Territorial Army at all. The whole of the Territorial Force would be drawn from the classes of recruits who now supplied the Yeomanry and the Volunteers. They were essentially a class of men who were in permanent civil employment. They were

717
not men who were able to leave their work for a long period at a time. They were willing to go out for training during their annual holidays, but they could not do more than that. His object in moving the Amendment was to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, and if possible to get it embodied in the Bill, that there would not be a liability on the recruits joining the Territorial Army to be called out more than once for training in any one year. At present recruits were trained at their own homes in the evenings, after their day's work was done, and it was impossible to adopt any other system without losing a most desirable class of men. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter as a serious one, and that if he could not accept the Amendment he would make some observations which would enable the present class of recruits to join the Territorial Army without fear of having in the first year to be called out for recruit drill and also for training in camp. He thought they might increase the attendances required in a man's first and second year of service, but, whatever steps of that kind were taken, if they were without compulsion to get the force drawn from the present Volunteer class, it was essential that they should not be called out for training more than once in any one year. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page II, line 35, to leave out from beginning to the word 'attend,' in page 12, line 2." —(Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be let out stand part of the Clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid that one of the difficulties in conducting the debate was that on one Amendment they had a current of opinion which ran counter to the opinion expressed on the same point from the same quarter on a former Amendment. Ho had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but it was opposed to the argument of the hon. Member who sat near him. He thought that the one hon. Gentleman went too far, while the other did not go far enough. The notion of the Government was that on this subject they
718
should organise the system of instruction very much more than at present; that from various centres instructors should be sent out to local districts, and that the number of instructors should be increased so as to give in the most organised form the necessary troop and company training. Obviously that would be different in one district from another, according to the number of the units. What the Government was aiming at was to organise all this and to provide local centres of instruction. The Amendment of the hon. Member would practically strike out all the provisions in regard to recruit training, except those which related to the drills referred to in Subsection 2. That would be going back to the low standard which existed at the present moment. Ho hoped to get a higher standard than that by a system of local instruction which should be carried out under very careful supervision. Under the new organisation of the Territorial Force there would be a Major-General commanding a division, under him there would be a Brigadier-General, and under him a Brigade-Major, together with a staff who would supervise the instruction of the recruits. That was the enormous advantage of bringing in professional soldiers of high standing. With that machinery, and with that capacity for organisation, he would prefer that they should go slowly and adapt themselves to the circumstances of the recruits; and therefore he could not accept the words of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
Sir HOWARD VINCENTsaid he could not understand the observation of the Secretary of State for War. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to place the training of recruits in the hands of the County Associations?
MR. HALDANE: No.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had stated he was going to send forth instructors in every direction like a covey of partridges.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. and gallant Member had got County Associations on the brain. He was not then speaking of the County Associations.

719
The sending forth of the instructors would be done in the ordinary way.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that surely the right hon. Gentleman would leave something for the Commanding Officers to do, or the Territorial Army would come to grief. The right hon. Gentleman should leave the training in some degree in the hands of the Adjutant. Although it was perfectly true that they looked to the formation of the force into brigades and divisions, yet if this supervision of the Major-General was going to interfere with the training of the recruits the right hon. Gentleman would not do any good to the Territorial Force.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked what amount of preliminary training the right hon. Gentleman considered would be required to turn these recruits into competent soldiers. Could any of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers guarantee that cavalry or artillery recruits could be made into efficient soldiers under that preliminary training? Up to the present moment that assumption had not been made good. If the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was not to be taken seriously, but only as a pious opinion, that owing to local circumstances they could only put the men under a training which would put, them on the road to efficiency—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not see that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that what he wanted to know was what the training was to be.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that that question did not arise on the Amendment.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid he was sure that they all welcomed the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that the number of instructors was to be increased; but it was an important matter whether these instructors were to be put under the Major-General commanding the Division, the Brigadier
720
General, the Brigade Major, the County Associations, or the Commanding Officer of the battalion.
MR. HALDANEsaid that there was no intention of unduly taking power away from the Commanding Officer; but it must be remembered that the Commanding Officer of a Volunteer Corps at the present time could not always be present to see to the training of recruits.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: What about the Adjutant?
Mr. HALDANEsaid that what was proposed was that there should be a system of instruction for recruits under the supervision of the Divisional Commander, through the Commanding Officer of a battalion, and that system of instruction would be available for recruit training and such other training as was necessary to develop a knowledge of discipline. There would be no interference with the responsibility of the Commanding Officer.
VISCOUNT MORPETHinquired whether a Major-General commanding a division, or a Brigadier-General commanding a brigade, was to take the training of companies out of the hands of the Colonel commanding the battalion.
MR. HALDANE: No; the Commanding Officer will organise and supervise the training.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he was strongly in favour of retaining the class of men whom they had in the Militia in the old days; but if the preliminary training and the annual training were to take place in the same year there were a great many men now in the Volunteer Corps who could not possibly do it. They were usually men who had only a fortnight's holiday, and they could not, in his judgment, do both the preliminary training and the annual training. If the right hon. Gentleman assured him that under his regulations he would suit the punishment to the crime and the burden to the shoulders which had to bear it he would not further urge the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHmoved an Amendment which had for its object the preventing of men being called out more frequently than was required. The clause provided that a man might be trained at such places and at such times, and for such periods, not exceeding the number of days specified by the order in council, and might be called out "once or oftener." He proposed, with a view of accomplishing his purpose, to leave out the words "or oftener." He thought it would be far bettor for the scheme if the recruit knew what he had to do in the first year, and whether he was to work for a week or a fortnight. As the Bill at present stood a man might be called out for Militia training once and then be called out again.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 40, to leave out. the words 'or oftener.'" — (Viscount Castlereagh.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or part oftener stand of the clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid the words were put in not to create uncertainty but to make provision for the different customs of different districts. It was the custom to call out the troops oftener in some districts than in others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
Colonel KENYON-SLANEYsaid the Opposition were dissatisfied with the statement made by the Secretary for War; they wanted to know what the preliminary training of these Territorial Forces was to be, and why the right hon. Gentleman could not tell them fairly and squarely the amount of training which he and his advisers thought would turn out an efficient soldier, in order that the country might judge whether that training would be effective for that purpose, or whether it was only a training of a nature as good as they could give under the circumstances. The difference was fundamental, because the country might take a perfectly different view of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme
722
if they recognised that under it they would have an efficient fighting force. He thoroughly recognised the difficulties in the task of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was essential that they should know whether these forces would be so trained that they would be able to reinforce the fighting line. He protested against the dangerous heresy which had been brought forward that they should not aim at a high standard of professional training, but that it was a good thing to create a sort of "go as you please "system under which discipline should be relaxed as far as possible, and there should be as little as possible of professional pressure put upon the men. That view had been indicated by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division upon more than one occasion, and he could not help feeling that the instincts of the hon. Member were distinctly in favour of considerable laxity in discipline in the army he would like to create. He, however, wanted to urge that the discipline should be adequate and sufficient training given. What did they want discipline to create? Not a very smart movement under arms or a very bold warlike movement, but, above everything, to create a feeling of reliance on their comrades throughout the ranks of the service. Each soldier must have a distinct feeling of reliance, not only upon the officer who was leading him, but on the men who were fighting right and left of him, and upon whom he had to depend in the fight. They could not get that discipline without sufficient training to create esprit de corps and camaraderie. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division argued the question as if they had to train an Army with the view that it was to proceed from success to success, but discipline came in not when an army went from one victory to another, but in times of reverses and temporary defeat. That was when they wanted the highest qualities of discipline, and they could not get it without what he was begging for, viz., a sufficient training. He greatly doubted whether the period of training allowed under the Bill was sufficient.
Lord EDMUND TALBOTwished for some information as to the training of those portions of the

723
Yeomanry which were to be imported into the regular cavalry of the Army in the form of divisional cavalry. In the divisional cavalry there would not be, as far as he understood, one single regular cavalry soldier, but it would consist entirely of Yeomanry. He thought the total number of squadrons which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to favour was fourteen; but those squadrons were to be made up of individual troops from different regiments. He did not believe that such a system would work out with adequate efficiency, as he did not think it was possible to take troops from different regiments for squadron training. The Yeomanry squadrons were to be formed immediately on the declaration of war, as part of the fighting line of the Regular Army, and would not have the advantage of six months training. The Committee ought to have some information as to their training and pay.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he was not quite sure whether the noble Lord in his previous remarks had been in order, but this clause had certainly nothing to do with the question of pay, and observations on that question were out of order.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid a Volunteer must have some preliminary training, and some means must be provided. He would confine himself to asking, however, what that training was to be.
*MR. HALDANEsaid he had very strongly resisted the temptation to go into any detail, and the case of the Yeomanry was just the one where he must be more cautious than he had been in the other case. Yet he would be a little rash, and although what he would state had been worked out very carefully, it might have to be revised. The special contingent Yeomanry would not belong to the Territorial Army at all. They came under Part III., and would be in the same position as the Militia would be. They would cease to have their old character and belong to the special contingent and undergo a special training of six months. Being of a superior class, the men and officers would
724
probably have had a good deal of training in the Yeomanry regiments, and instances might be forthcoming where it might be possible to curtail the full six months training in the case of some individuals; but the general idea of the training was that it should be of six months among those who joined as the special contingent. The officers would be specially trained. The annual training would be fifteen days, and it would be undertaken in some ' cases with the Yeomanry regiments, though it was better that the annual training should be with the cavalry division to which the Yeomanry contingent was allotted. The force was to serve as divisional cavalry and to go along with the division to which it was allotted. This arrangement might not be always practicable, and if it was not, then the Yeomanry would take their annual training with their own regiments, or with a cavalry regiment. He could not enter into further detail now. The Bill asked for wide powers, and ho would be doing a great disservice to the public interest were ho to tie himself hand and foot so as not to be able to revise and improve their conclusions as time went on. He could not, therefore, commit himself to the specific propositions which he had been invited on all bands to favour. What amount of training would make an efficient soldier was raising a conundrum it was not possible to answer under the suggested system. All they could do was to get for the men the best training possible and put them in the way of becoming efficient. He quoted the authority of the distinguished military writer, Colonel Henderson, to the effect that with good officers, and a certain amount of previous training, there was no reason why unprofessional soldiers should not do excellent service in the field. The War Office had come to the conclusion that the best way to train was to bring these men as much as possible in close contact with professional soldiers of high standing. These officers ought to be the inspirers of the Commanders of the Territorial units, and therefore they proposed to bring the Commanders into closer contact with the Regular Forces, to give the force a regular organisation, and to introduce a more scientific standard of training than existed at the present time. It might be found that they dared not press the Territorial Infantry to take

725
more than a certain amount of training. The men might not come in if they put too much strain on them. What they should do was to get the men on the way to attain that military efficiency about which Colonel Henderson had written in his book.
MR. WYNDHAMsubmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee, even in outline, his idea of what the preliminary training of the recruits should consist.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether the Yeomanry was to be trained as cavalry or mounted Infantry,
MR. HALDANEsaid that the fourteen squadrons of Yeomanry would fulfil the function of divisional cavalry. The purpose of the War Office was to give a military organisation to the entire force, and their functions would be to act as cavalry. In the Estimate on the Table it would be seen how they were organised. The Yeomanry were not strictly under the Commander of the division; they were under a Brigadier as a cavalry force.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 211.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Chance, Frederick William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Charming, Sir Francis Allston

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

Agnew, George William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clough, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

Alden, Percy

Clynes, J. R.

Hall, Frederick

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Coats.Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis U

Allen, Charles P.(Stroud)

(Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Collins, SirWm.J.(S. Pancras,W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'l)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hart-Davies, T.

Astbury, John Meir

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cory, Clifford John

Harwood, George

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barker, John

Cremer, William Randal

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Barlow, John Emmott(Somers't

Crombie, John William

Hedges, A. Paget

Barlow, Percy (Bodford)

Crooks, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crosfield, A. H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barry, Redmond, J.(Tyrone, N.

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Beauchamp, E.

Davies Ellis William (Eifion)

Henry, Charles S.

Beck, A. Cecil

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Bell, Richard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Higham, John Sharp

Benn, W.(T w'rHamlets,S. Geo.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobart, Sir Robert F

Bennett, E. N.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H

Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

Holland, Sir William Henry

Billson, Alfred

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Holt, Richard Durning

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Boulton, A. C. F.

Elibank, Master of

Hudson, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Erskine, David C.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Brace, William

Essex, R. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brigg, John

Evans, Samuel T.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Everett, R. Lacey

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brodie, H. C.

Fabet, G. H. (Boston)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brooke, Stopford

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jowett, F. W.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Findlay, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kekewich, Sir George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fullerton, Hugh

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gardner. Col. Alan (Hereford. S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Byles, William Pollard

Gill, A. H.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Cairns, Thomas

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Laidlaw, Robert

Cameron, Robert

Glover, Thomas

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lambert, George

Causton, Rt. Hn, RichardKnight

Gooch, George Peabody

Lamont, Norman

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Grant, Corrie

Lay land-Barratt, Francis

Lehmann, R. C.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Levy, Maurice

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Summerbell, T.

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lough, Thomas

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

Tennant. Sir Edward (Salisbury

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pullar, Sir Robert

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Lyell, Charless Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)

Lynch, H. B.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Thomasson, Franklin

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk Bg'hs)

Rees, J. D.

Tillett, Louis John

Mackarness, Frederic C

Rendall, Athelstan

Tomkinson. James

Maclean, Donald

Richardson, A.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ure, Alexander

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Verney, F. W.

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Rt, Hn. E. (Dundee)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Crae, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Walsh, Stephen

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robinson, S.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Maddison, Frederick

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waldle, George J.

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Runciman, Walter

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Marnham, F. J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason. John Cathcart(Orkney)

Menzies, Walter

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Waterlow, D. S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Watt, Henry A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Mond, A.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Morrell, Philip

Seaverns, J. H.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Morse, L. L.

Seely, Major J. B.

Wiles, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Napier, T. B.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Williamson, A.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Nutta'l), Harry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Yoxall, James Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Steadman, W. C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Craig. Captain James (Down. E.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Dixon-Hartland Sir FredDixon

Mildmay. Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Balcarres. Lord

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Baldwin, Alfred

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner. John S. Harmood-

Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Percy, Earl

Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Helmsley. Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Ed' m's

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Boyle, Sir Ed ward

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

Bull, Sir William James

Kimber, Sir Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R,

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Smith, Hon. W. F. I). (Strand)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lee. Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Liddell, Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor.

Long. Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-( Lanark)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thornton. Percy M.

Courthope. G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Meysey-Thompson E. C.

Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

728

729

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. G. Stuart-

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Younger, George

Viscount Valentia.

Clause 14:—
SIR HOWARD VINCENTin moving to leave out the word "man" and to insert the word "unit," said the Amendment would further assist the Secretary of State for War in making his Territorial Army popular and efficient. Anything which prevented or terrified recruits from coming in, or threatened them with more training and more obligations than they could well perform, would interfere very seriously with recruiting for the force. They did not want to deceive any individual into accepting greater obligations than he could possibly undertake. After all, what they wanted was not so much that the individual man, but that the unit should be thoroughly efficient. That was the object of going into camp. The training of the individual in camp was not so great as the training of the whole unit. The Secretary of State for War might be quite sure that every reasonable pressure would be brought to bear on every individual in the battalion, and by substituting the word "unit" for the word man" they would not hold in the face of men that species of terrorism which he thought would interfere with recruiting for the Territorial Force.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 9, to leave out the word 'man' and insert the word 'unit.'"(—Sir Howard Vincent.)
Question proposed, "That the Word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid the very purpose of the clause was to prescribe what was to be the annual training of the individual man. Of course, the annual training of the units depended on that, but they could not be the same thing. For instance, men might be in the service of a firm who could not dispense with their presence for the whole fifteen days, though they might be able to let them off for eight days. In that case, it might be the best course for the particular unit to begin with the whole fifteen days. Some men might be
730
there for the first eight days, and others for the last eight days; and they Were particularly anxious that the headquarters of the unit should be kept standing for the full period so that the men might have an opportunity of taking as long a training as they could.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I do not press the Amendment, and ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ASHLEYmoved, to leave out the words "not less than eight nor more than." He said that his object was to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman some definite statement as to what were the intentions of the Government as to the amount of training a territorial soldier was annually to receive, how much the cavalry, how much the infantry, and how much the artillery. They had endeavoured for some two hours to get a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to preliminary training, but they had obtained absolutely no satisfaction at all. Now they approached the annual training, as to which they had had some slight indication of what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman, because he said that the training should not be less than eight days and not more than fifteen. He also put in the Bill a provision by which the commanding officer, if he thought fit, could extend the training to thirty days, or reduce it to none at all; he agreed that something of that sort was necessary. So that it was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the annual training should vary from eight to fifteen days; he would allow some corps to train for eight days, and for others, he presumed, the right hon. Gentleman favoured fifteen days instead of eight. If they looked at the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the cost of the Territorial Force they saw that it was based on fifteen days' training, and therefore he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was aiming at fifteen days. Personally, he was in favour of fifteen days training. The bulk of the Militia

731
had always trained for twenty-eight days. If the Militia joined the Territorial Force, they would have some 90,000 men of the Territorial Force who would receive annually fifteen days' training instead of twenty-eight days—a very considerable reduction. As to the Yeomanry, he gathered from what had been said by those interested in that force that in all probability it was to be three or four days more than the fifteen days. With regard to the Volunteers, there were many who could not come out for fifteen days, but there were a great many who could and ought to come out. He had conversed with several commanding officers of Volunteers, who had pointed out that they could train the men perfectly well in eight days if all the men came up with the same amount of military education. Some of them came up for training well grounded in the work, whilst others were not grounded at all. The result was that if the commanding officer wished to train all the men on the same scale he must begin at the bottom of the ladder. If they had fifteen days there was always the second week to bring up to a proper state of efficiency those who were not well grounded. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 11, to leave out the words, 'not less than eight nor more than.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid the purpose of the scheme was to get fifteen days training whenever they could, and there-fore they had proposed standing camps for fifteen days. When the men of a particular unit could not come for fifteen days half of them might come for the first week and half for the second week. The proposal of the Government was to give fifteen days training to the territorial soldier wherever it was possible.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid it was a great pleasure to him to be able to support the view of the Secretary of State for War. He was sure that it was a sound view, although, as his hon. friend had said, fifteen days were better than eight. A man gained enormously in camp after the first week. There
732
were a largo number of men whose employment rendered it absolutely impossible for them to be absent for fifteen days. There were a certain number of men who would be able to stay in camp ten, eleven, twelve or even fifteen days. For those reasons he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would be best left as it was. He desired to impress on the Secretary of State for War that he should settle as early in the year as possible the dates of the annual training. In the case of many members of the Territorial Force who were juniors in their various offices, leave of absence was fixed very early in the year, and it would be a great advantage if they knew in January or February the date upon which the camp was likely to beheld, so that they would be able to make their arrangements. In that ease they would be able by working extra time or adopting other means so to arrange as to obtain leave for the whole period of training. In the past they had suffered very much from the uncertainty in regard to the time of holding the camps, and in some cases they had not known anything about the matter until June.
CAPTAIN CRAIGasked if the training in the case of the artillery was to be limited to fifteen days. He did not think efficiency could be achieved with such a short training.
MR. HALDANEpointed out that in Section 14 there was power given to extend the time of the annual training in the case of the artillery. The ordinary rule, however, would be fifteen days subject to extension.
MR. CARLILEasked if that would apply to the Yeomanry, who would have to train their horses as well. He did not think they could train the Yeomanry in the same number of days as the infantry.
MR. HALDANEsaid the power he had just mentioned of extending the time of training applied to the Yeomanry just as much as the artillery.
MR. CARLILEasked whether it was the intention of the Government that the present training of the Yeomanry, which was eighteen days, should be cut down to fifteen days.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That question is not in order on this Amendment.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the fifteen days training would be open to the whole of the Volunteer force from the date of the Act. He understood that there was to be a transition period, and he would like to know whether this was confined to those corps transferred to the Territorial Array, or whether in the event of the Bill passing all Volunteer corps would be allowed to go back to the fifteen days training next year.
MR. HALDANEsaid he doubted whether the suggestion was a practical one, because the Bill would not be passed until they were well into July, and therefore the arrangements could not be made in time for the next camp. He hoped that next year the Territorial Force might have fifteen days training all round.
MR. ASHLEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the answer to the Amendment he wished to move had boon partly given already. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in case fifteen days was not thought to be sufficient the period could be extended by Order in Council. He would like to know why was it necessary to have the limit in at all. It seemed to him that if an Order in Council could be used in special cases it could be used in all cases. The limit which had been inserted would tend to establish that number of days as a sort of maximum. The Yeomanry were now trained for more than fifteen days, and it was impossible to train them properly in anything less than that period. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to make the training of the Yeomanry more difficult, and therefore it was more necessary than ever that they should have an extended period of training. If the Yeomanry were going to be trained as cavalry soldiers they would have to undergo a more difficult and exacting training than at present. Did the fifteen days include the occasional drills, or did it merely apply
734
to the annual training? He did not know what the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman might be in future in regard to the Yeomanry outside the annual training, and the question whether those occasional days were included was a very important one. He thought it was rather an unfortunate thing that eight or fifteen days should be put in the clause at all; it would have boon far butter to allow the whole subject to be dealt with as the occasion arose. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 12, to leave out the word 'fifteen' and insert the word 'twenty-one.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
MR. HALDANEasked what he was to do when, taking the Bill as it stood, he found one set of critics pulling one way, saying it was too vague, and another set of critics pulling the other way, saying, "You are too specific. Do not fall into the temptation these others are spreading for you." It was very desirable that the force should have some certainty about the training. Mounted troops might find that they could train for longer periods than fifteen days, and there was a provision in a later section to deal with that. But for normal cases there should be some limit, and fifteen days was a fair one. That being so, he thought that the Bill as it stood was in the form most suitable for the accomplishment of their purpose. He therefore could not accept the Amendment.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was a question of experience whether they could get the men out for more than fourteen days. Perhaps he was aware that the usual time in camp was eighteen days, and therefore practical experience had shown that the men could do all that was asked. The right hon. Gentleman should not curtail the period which now existed. If he could give an assurance that that would not be done they would be delighted. There should be fifteen days actual training, the two days required for marching in and the Sundays, which wore equally unavailable for training, being excluded.
*Mr. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that some of the Yeomanry came out for sixteen days, but they did their squadron drills at other times of the year. That might be convenient for some, but it was hopelessly inconvenient for others. He suggested that it might be made possible that those for whom it was inconvenient should be allowed to add a training period which would be deemed equal in value to the occasional drills required from the force.
MR. HALDANEsaid the suggestion of the hon. Member was a very sensible one, but there was power to do that. There were some regiments which could not take squadron drills at the same time as others.
MR. LANE-FOXasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHmoved to leave out the words "or oftener." He thought they were all agreed that there was a great deal of ambiguity in the Bill. It was obvious, for the purpose of obtaining recruits, that those recruits must know what they were enlisted for, and what was likely to happen to them when once they had enlisted. That being so, he would like to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would be good enough to define the meaning of the words "called out." He took it that they meant that a recruit was called upon to leave his employment for the time being when he was wanted to perform drill or other training. The Auxiliary Forces would suffer a great deal if there were any uncertainty on the part of the recruit when he joined the Territorial Army as to whether he would be called upon once or more than once during the course of the year for the purpose of training. It was his endeavour to make the scheme as much a success as possible, but he had great apprehension that if it failed the country would be placed in a dangerous position. It would never be possible to get that efficiency in the proposed Territorial Army which the right hon. Gentleman hoped for, but they should certainly endeavour to make the condition of its members as little onerous as possible, with efficiency as the object. Recruits should know exactly what their liabilities
736
were going to be and for how many day, in ordinary circumstances, they were likely to be called out. There was a potent factor to be considered in this matter, viz., the employer. They knew that employers as a whole took an antipathy to the Militiaman and even to the Reservist. If there was a doubt as to what the training of the Territorial Army recruit was going to be, that antipathy on the part of the employer would be increased to an enormous extent. As the Bill existed at the present time it would act as a deterrent to recruiting in the Territorial Army. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 15, to leave out the words 'or oftener.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he would like to join the noble Lord in protesting against anything being done which would act as a deterrent to recruits entering the force. That might be the effect if they thought that they were to be liable to too much drill. The employer difficulty was a very serious one indeed. If there was any increased liability put on employers to allow their employees to get away for training, he was sure that one of the first questions they would ask a man who applied for work was whether he was a member of the Territorial Force. If the applicant was in the force the employer would say that he wanted a clerk who would be at the office when required, and not a Territorial soldier. That employer might be willing to allow the man to go for training once a year, but it was a very serious matter to ask him to allow the man to go a second time. He took it that the right hon. Gentleman wished that there should be fifteen day straining, but that they need not be consecutive days. If that was so, the subsection might the expressed in happier words. He thought the words "or oftener" were liable to the construction put upon them by his noble friend.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.)said he might

737
be allowed to say a word on this question, not from the point of view of the Treasury Bench, but as one. of the commanding officers of Volunteers. If they were to take out the words "or oftener," they would suffer from the disabilities which commanding officers suffered from now. Sometimes they could get a man to come for three or four days twice a year, though they might not be able to get him for eight days at a stretch owing to the conditions of his ordinary employment. Under the words in the section a Territorial soldier could be called out for three or four days at one time, and could complete the eight days at another time. It would be a great advantage to the commanding officers of Volunteers to have that power, which they did not possess at the present time.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that when the men came out for a few days here and there they could never get a battalion all together for drill. He quite agreed that the rule should apply to the annual training; but the men might say that that was all very well, but that they did not intend to do this, that, or the other thing, and that they would not turn out when called upon to serve oftener than once in any part of the United Kingdom.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that something of the sort suggested by the hon. Member's Amendment would be very useful indeed. But they should not press the Secretary for War unduly, but leave him some time to consider the matter.
MR. HALDANEsaid that they were at one in their purpose, and he would consider the matter between now and the Report stage, and see whether the words could not be altered.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that after that assurance he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved to leave out subsection (b), and to insert, 'Provided that the commanding officer may for any cause which ho deems sufficient dispense wholly or in part with the attendance at
738
such training of any individual man. He said there were generals and generals. There were some who were very human and took a true view of life, and others who did not. He thought that the commanding officer was the best judge as to when a cause was sufficient to allow the attendance at training of any individual man to be dispensed with wholly or in part. There were heaps of control over the commanding officer, who was only appointed for four years.
MR. WYNDHAM,on a point of order, submitted that an Amendment of which he had given notice ought to be taken first.
VISCOUNT MORPETH: remarked that he had on the Paper a proposal to add the following new subsection—
"Every man of the first (Militia) battalion of the territorial regiment shall be trained three months on enlistment, and shall train for thirty days in every year subsequently (luring his term of service."
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that he thought the noble Viscount's Amendment would not be in order now. The period of training had already been dealt with.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that they had already dealt with the period of preliminary training of recruits, although not satisfactorily to hon. Members on that side of the House. What they were now dealing with was the annual training of the Auxiliary Forces. His object, no less than that of the right hon. Gentleman, was to fit the cavalry and artillery sections of the Auxiliary Forces so that they should be capable for the support of, and expansion on emergency into, the Regular Army. With that view the Opposition had advised the Government to improve the Militia and the Yeomany and impose upon both of them the obligation for foreign service; to provide for Regular Artillery; and to show the Volunteers a great deal of consideration. That plan had been put on one side. The Government had taken the body of the Militia and converted it into a draft-making machine, and the cream of the Yeomanry were to be put into a Reserve. With regard to the Artillery, they were told that there was power to drill for thirty days, which might or might not be applied. How vague was the situation of

739
this force which was to support and expand the first line of the Regular Array! The right hon. Gentleman was trying to do the impossible. The plan suggested in the Amendment was one by which, at any rate, some of the troops of the Territorial Force could receive a more adequate training. Taking the force as the right hon. Gentleman would constitute it, consisting only of the Volunteers and the efficient part of the Yeomanry, some portion of that force should receive sufficient training in each year. There were fifty-six regiments of Yeomanry cavalry. If one out of eight trained for two months each year, each regiment would only be asked to make that effort once in seven years. The number of batteries of artillery were far in excess of fifty-six, and if one Volunteer artillery battery out of eight were asked to train for two months in each year, that obligation would only come once in fifteen, seventeen, or twenty years. As to the Infantry, only one regiment out of eight would be asked to serve for one month, which would not be a great burden upon them. He suggested that if the training of the second line was at present inadequate there would be a good opportunity, if the Amendment were carried, for Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry being trained together at least once every seven years.
Amendment proposed:—
"In page 12, line 19, after the word 'that' to insert the words, one out of every eight regiments of Cavalry or batteries of Field Artillery shall be trained for two months, and one out of every eight battalions of Infantry for one month in each year, and that.' "—(Mr. Wyndham.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEsaid it was impossible to lay it down that out of every eight battalions of Infantry there was to be selected one to be trained every year for a month. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean? Did he mean that there was to be a relation among the eight so that each was to be trained for a month in each succeeding year, because if they got into that sort of controversy there would be interminable confusion? Moreover, some men might come out of some battalions to avoid a
740
month's training, while others might go into other battalions to obtain it. He took the right hon. Gentleman to mean, however, that one out of the eight battalions was to have special training, and that raised a question which they h id discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill, whether there should be a special force raised out of the Territorial Army which should have special training. He never wished to preclude that, as he thought there might be units of the Territorial Force desirous of taking a longer preliminary and annual training. If they got that, the condition of the right hon. Member would be fulfilled. But that must depend upon circumstances and experience. It might be desirable to couple that longer training with a promise to go on foreign service if required. But this was one of those things about which they wished to know a great deal before they did anything. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, however, as to both the Infantry and the other forces was unworkable under the provisions of the Bill.
*VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid his right hon. friend's proposal was that the period of training should be lengthened for a certain number of soldiers in the Territorial Army, and he must support an Amendment to that effect. He did not like the Amendment of his right hon. friend, however, so well as he liked his own, which, instead of doing it by rota, provided that the men who were trained for a longer time should go into one battalion His Amendment was to the effect that every man of the first (Militia) battalion of the Territorial regiment should be trained three months on enlistment, and for thirty days in every year subsequently during his term of service. Ho thought that would be satisfactory, and that there were many of the old Militia who would join on those terms who would otherwise be lost. Ho knew that the right hon. Gentleman thought that those men would go into the third battalion, but it was not his opinion or the opinion of those who were engaged in connection with the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to find some place in which these men could serve. There would then be time for the battalion to do musketry at the same time as their training. What was the result of constant training in musketry?

741
The Regulars who did most training came first, the Militia second, and the Volunteers, who only did it in odds and ends of time, came third, although they had some very fine shots.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The Volunteers come third in musketry?
*VISCOUNT MORPETHrepeated that that was the case; the figures were as he had stated. There was nothing to take offence at, however, as it was not the fault of the Volunteers. It showed the necessity for training in musketry practice. The extra length of training would enable them to get a much more efficient battalion than could be obtained with musketry drills at odds and ends of time. Officers, non-commissioned officers, and men could only learn their work and gain confidence by training, and where the officers of the auxiliary Army at present failed was in lack of confidence, which the regular officer got through living with his men. He urged the Secretary of State for War to provide for the men who were prepared to take a longer training, and to consider whether it would not be possible to have such a battalion as he proposed.
*COLONEL HERBERThoped the Amendment would not be pressed, and said the right hon. Gentleman could carry out the object he had in view under the clause as it stood. There was nothing in the clause to prevent certain units getting more training in certain areas, because by Order in Council His Majesty might order that the whole or part of the Territorial Army might undergo such training. The Secretary of State for War might recommend His Majesty to exercise that power, and the only difficulty was the financial one.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and gallant Member might think there was that power, but they did not. They wanted something definite in the Bill. They were to have 300,000 men, and the Government were under no obligation to train any of them at all. With a view to minimising that national danger they wished the House to say that at least one-eighth part of the. force should be trained. He could not recede from that.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 212.)

AYES.

Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. HughO.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan. Robert (Lanark, Govan

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Remnant, James Farquharson

Raring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Barrie. H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Kenyon-Slaney. Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bennett, E. N.

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bowles, G. Stewart

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Boyle, Sir Edward

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Magnus, Sir Philip

Thornton, Percy M.

Butcher. Samuel Henry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Mildmay. Francis Bingham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cave. George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir

Courthope, G. Loyd

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Craig. Captain James (Down, E.

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease. Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baker. Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Beale, W. P.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Bell, Richard

Alden, Percy

Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Benn, W.(T' w' r Hamlets. S. Geo.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnes, G. N.

Bethell. Sir J. H.(Essex. Romf'rd

Astbury, John Meir

Hunan, Rowland Hirst

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Billson, Alfred

Haworth, Arthur A.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Richardson, A.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brace. William

Helme, Norval Watson

Robinson, S.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Runciman. Walter

Brigg, John

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.

Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brooke, Stopford

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Higham, John Sharp

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Sears, J. E.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Seddon, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Shackleton, David James

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Sherwell, Arthur James

Byles, William Pollard

Horniman, Emslie John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cairns, Thomas

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Silcock. Thomas Ball

Cameron, Robert

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Simon, John Allsebrook

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Hudson, Walter

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Chance, Frederick William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hyde, Clarendon

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stanger. H. V.

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Steadman. W. C.

Clynes, J. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford;

Stewart-Smith I). (Kendal)

Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Collins, Sir Wm.J.(S. Pancras, W

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lambert, George

Summerbell, T.

Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

Lamont, Norman

Sutherland, J. E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Maurice

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

Tennant. Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Crooks, William

Lupton, Arnold

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Crossley, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomasson. Franklin

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lynch, H. B.

Thompson. J. W. H.(Somerset, E

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maclean, Donald

Ure, Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Verney, F. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MCallum, John M.

Walsh, Stephen

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Walters, John Tudor

Erskine, David C.

M'Micking, Major G.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Essex, R. W.

Maddison, Frederick

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Esslemont, George Birnie

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Eve, Hurry Trelawney

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wardle, George J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Waring, Walter

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Marnham, F. J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Walter

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Findlay, Alexander

Micklem, Nathaniel

Watt. Henry A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Whitbread, Howard

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gill, A. H.

Murray, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Glover, Thomas

Napier, T. B.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Newness F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

Whit-taker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Gooch, George Peabody

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wiles, Thomas

Grant, Corrie

Parker, James (Haliafx)

Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilson. Hon. C. H. W.(Hull, W.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, T. (Westhoughton)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)

Wood. T. M'Kinnon

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hall, Frederick

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.Pease.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Rees, J. D.

Hart-Davies, T.

Rendall, Athelstan

Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire. N.E.

Richards, Thomas (W.Monmth

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved an Amendment providing that the com-
744
manding officer, and not "the prescribed general officer," should have the power

745
to dispense with the attendance at training of individual men. As he had pointed out to the Secretary of State, this Bill almost effaced the commanding officer. The drill was to be given by the brigadier, the permission to leave the force was to be given by the County Association; in point of fact he could not see what use the commanding officer was at all under the Bill. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that he was making a great mistake if he thought he was going to work the Territorial Force without the commanding officer. The Auxiliary Forces were formed by the commanding officers almost in the teeth of the authorities, and if the right hon. Gentleman was going to get rid of the commanding officers he might as well give up the Territorial Force altogether. One reason why ho hoped the Secretary of State would accept the Amendment was that the right hon. Gentleman had already, agreeing wisely with the advice offered on all hands, been good enough to put back the regular adjutants, who who were abolished by the Bill as drafted. The regular adjutant was undoubtedly a very great check on a too indulgent commanding officer, and it was essential to the welfare of the force that the units should look to the commanding officer. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to trust the commanding officer, or if he did not trust him to remove him at once. They had every opportunity to do so, because he was only appointed for four years; but let not the right hon. Gentleman give the go-by to the commanding officer and say that the brigadier or the division general should do this, that, and the other. The commanding officer was responsible for the efficiency of the unit, would not be too indulgent, and could judge every case upon its merits. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the successful administration of the Act depended on the good will of the commanding officer. He bogged to move.
*The CHAIRMANsaid he would have to put. the Amendment in rather a different form.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 19, to leave out the words prescribed general,' and to insert the word commanding.' '—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. and gallant Member throughout the discussion had been much concerned as to the position of the commanding officer. The Government had no intention or idea of diminishing his position. All they desired to do was to make his position more like that of a regular officer. The provision they were now introducing was introduced with no view of injuring the position of the commanding officer, but in reality for his assistance. It was very undesirable that the commanding officer should be exposed to the odium which sometimes attached to those who had to deal with these matters and say "No." Sometimes it was not very easy to have to say "No." He disliked to say "No" to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then say yes.
MR. HALDANEsaid he was a member of the Army Council and his colleagues would not let him. It was desirable that the commanding officer should have some uniformity of standard by being able to refer to the brigadier, who should be the judge of what the standard should be. The brigadier would take the commanding officer's recommendation in every proper case. In the ordinary way the application would be made to the commanding officer and by him forwarded with his recommendation to the brigadier. That system obtained in analogous cases in the Regular Forces. For that reason he thought it was bettor that the clause should stand as at present, and thus allow the division general or the brigadier to be the judge in these cases. To meet the view of hon. Members opposite he was prepared to add, after the words "application being made in the prescribed manner," some such words as these: "through the commanding officer of the unit." That would ensure the applications going through the proper channel, but he thought that the prescribed general officer should be the ultimate tribunal.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he wished to support the view of his

747
hon. friend with regard to the commanding officers. They ought not to take these matters of detail out of the hands of the commanding officers, because it went a very great way towards under-mining their position. He could only say that under no circumstances would he himself agree to the command of a regiment if these small matters were taken out of his hands and given to another person put over his head to direct the movement of men who were virtually, or were supposed to be, under his command. He thought that the great drawback of the criticism of the present military system was that those who made it had very little experience of regimental life. He knew that the experience of the commanding officer of a regiment did not appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen in the same manner that it appealed to himself and those who had served in the Army or Auxiliary Forces; but the authority of a commanding officer in barracks or over the regiment was paramount.
MR. HALDANE: In the Regular Army it is the brigadier.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that the man in the barracks looked upon the commanding officer as all-powerful. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to make the commanding officer absolutely responsible, and if he failed, censure him and dismiss him at once. No penalty could be too hard for a commanding officer who assumed responsibility and did not carry it out in a proper manner. The right hon. Gentleman should be very careful that the authority of the commanding officer was not weakened. It was said that the removal of these small things relieved the commanding officer of a certain amount of work, and that he would not be under the necessity of saying ''no." But these matters wore so absolutely connected with his command that he urged the right hon. Gentleman to make the commanding officer responsible to him, and give him jurisdiction over the whole of these small matters.
*MR. COURTHOPE: hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give way. These were matters for the commanding officer, who should not wish to shelter himself behind some higher power; it was
748
not desirable that he should be able so to shelter himself. If any commanding officer refused leave of absence, it would be very much better that he should do it on his own responsibility. He would be respected by the men. But the commanding officer who said, "I am very sorry; I would like to give you leave of absence, but I am not allowed to do so," would forfeit the respect of the men at once. It was not desirable that there should be an opportunity of shirking responsibility on the part of the commanding officer, and he was perfectly sure that the commanding officers themselves did not in the least desire that opportunity. Then there was another important matter bearing on this question, contained in the worns, "application made in the prescribed manner." That meant a form to be filled in, and within a small space the reasons had to be stated for asking leave of absence from camp. Necessarily the reason had to be stated in a few words, and a great number of the applications would no doubt appear in the same form of words, although the true reasons might be entirely different in the various cases. But the commanding officer would know the difference between the cases; he would know that one case was stronger than another, though the form might be the same, and if he had not this personal knowledge himself, ho was at least in close touch with his company officers, who had. How was the brigadier to know or judge of these matters; he had no local knowledge; he did not know the men or their employers. He might refuse leave of absence on every application that came within the same category. In some cases he might be right, and in other cases he might inflict grave injustice. It was very desirable that applications for leave of absence should not pass through too many hands. It was very desirable also they should not get into a stereotyped form, which was inevitable if these fatal words "prescribed manner" were left in the Bill.
MR. VERNEYsaid this was not a question dealing with mere detail. It did not only apply to the men, as had been argued on the other side of the House, but it applied to units. How were they going to allow a commanding officer to dispense with his whole unit? [Cries of "Read the

749
Amendment."] If they looked at the section they would see that it said—
"Provided that the prescribed general officer may, for any cause which he thinks sufficient, dispense wholly or in part as respects any unit or individual man with the requirements of this section on application being made in the prescribed manner."
Surely that took it out of the category put forward. [Renewed cries of "Read the Amendment."]
*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the question before the Committee was to leave out the words "the prescribed general officer," with the view of inserting "the. commanding officer," and the question was limited to that.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid the Amendment on the Paper was "Provided that the commanding-officer may for any cause which he deems sufficient dispense wholly or in part with the attendance at such training of any individual man."
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not the question put from the Chair; the Amendment on the Paper is not under discussion.
*COLONEL HERBERTsaid he had great sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, and he would suggest that they might be met by making the clause read "Provided that the prescribed officer may for any cause which he thinks fit," and so forth, and, at the end, inserting the words "subject to there vision of the general officer commanding." That would give power to the general officer commanding to delegate his power in this respect to the officer commanding the unit, which would be a very good thing to do. It would also give him the power to see that the commanding officer carried out the duty with proper regard to the requirements of the service. He had had some experience of this sort of application, and he could say as a chief staff officer of the district, that one got in the course of the day baskets full of applications of this nature. These were examined by a subordinate and were put before the officer, who had to sign them, by the bushel. The staff officer could not exercise discretion as the commanding officer might do, and the commanding officer was tempted, as the
750
hon. Gentleman opposite had observed, to throw the odium of refusal upon his superior officer. He thought that the clause could be so drafted as to thoroughly safeguard the position of the general officer commanding, and at the same time enable the duties to be performed by the officer who was commanding.
MR. HALDANEsaid he himself wished to meet the sense of the Committee, and he thought that they were very much of the mind of his hon. and gallant friend who had just spoken, but it was obvious that he would have to give some consideration as to what the words should be. His hon. and gallant friend had pointed out what, of course, they knew to be the feeling of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, whose Amendment had to be put in a more limited form than that in which it appeared on the Paper, but the proposal would apply to the unit. He thought that there was a great deal in what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend, and he would consider before Report whether he could frame a form of words which would steer clear of the unit while giving effect to what was proposed.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he thought, would see at once how, by his giving way, business was greatly advanced. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would continue in his new frame of mind, and not be in the least afraid of the Army Council. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHmoved to leave out sub-section (2) (a). He said that the right hon. Gentleman and himself seemed to have the same object in view, yet in the scheme everything was left as indefinite as possible, and members of the Territorial Force might have many surprises sprung upon them. He ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give them something more definite. Effective members of the Territorial Force would ask how many days they were to serve in the year, and the answer would be that it would be fifteen days unless His Majesty in Council decreed that it should be thirty days.

751
Men might be called to serve thirty days. He had had a certain amount of experience in recruiting. He remembered a resolution setting forth that recruits were being entrapped into the Army, and to a certain extent that was true. In the system of recruiting the smallest thing acted as a deterrent. In regard to the Territorial Force, where a man would be called upon to make some self-sacrifice, the slightest deterrent or uncertainty would cause him to draw back and make up his mind not to join the force. Therefore he invited the Secretary of State for War to specify the exact number of days so that a man joining the force would be able to make his arrangements from one year's end to another. He was sure that if a particular number of days was specified it would greatly facilitate the success of the scheme.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 24, to leave out sub-section (a)."—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid that for reasons he had already stated he was unable to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely essential that there should be some latitude in the matter. An Order in Council made under this clause would have to lie on the Table of the House for not less than thirty days. It was quite possible that an emergency might arise such as was the case in 1900, when emergency Volunteer camps were set up for a very good reason. They might be on the verge of war; a serious situation might arise, when it might be desirable to ask the Volunteers to take thirty days training. It was highly desirable to retain the subsection, and he could not accept the Amendment.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that although he had much sympathy with the Amendment, they must be very careful to do nothing that would deter men from joining the territorial force. He appreciated what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a threatened war or a complication with a foreign Power. Under such circumstances it would be the absolute duty of the Government to
752
train the whole Territorial Force for thirty days. He hoped the noble Lord would not divide the Committee on his Amendment.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the Amendment had been moved to get a precise statement from the right hon. Gentleman. They had been told that the War Office must have some latitude in the matter, and he quite agreed. He did not, however, think that any Act had ever been passed which conferred so much latitude on the War Office as this Bill, because it was all latitude. The annual training might be reduced by the Secretary of State for War to one day, and he might lay down that the whole or part of the Territorial Force in any given year should have no training whatever. That was latitude if ever there was any. He objected to that kind of thing very much, and in setting up this great citizen army, he thought the House of Commons ought itself to lay down the main lines upon which it was to be organised. The right hon. Gentleman said that latitude was required, and he quoted as an example the year 1900, when there were emergency camps for the Volunteers. The Secretary of State for War already possessed a power under the embodiment clause, by which ho could establish emergency camps. He thought Clause 14, like many other clauses in this Bill, was almost a farce, because the sub-section which they had been solemnly passing, laying down that the training should not be less than eight or more than fifteen days, meant absolutely nothing when read in connection with what was provided lower down in the clause. Uncertainty was the greatest deterrent which could be placed in the way of recruiting. Under this scheme the man who enlisted in a particular force had no idea what the actual obligations of the camp were going to be. He regretted that the clause placed responsibility on the authorities at the War Office which ought to be taken by the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he did not desire to press his Amendment to a division. All ho desired was to make the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman a success, and he wished to impress upon him that the element of

753
uncertainty was one of the things which would be most likely to ruin the scheme. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. COURTHOPEmoved to leave out subsection (b), which gave power to His Majesty in Council to order the period of the annual training to be reduced to such time as His Majesty might think fit. The period might be reduced below the minimum of eight days. He protested strongly against any such power, because it would reduce training to a perfect farce, and do away with its whole value. When they went out for eight days training under the present system there was nothing done on the first day they went into camp, which was generally on the Saturday. On the Sunday following there was nothing done owing to the idea that on Sunday all the men should be allowed to loaf about the streets, and the following Monday was generally spent in getting over the effects of their loafing about on the Sunday or in settling down. Consequently they did not begin serious training until the Tuesday. On the Friday they had to pack up and Saturday they went home. Consequently they had only three days of real work and for the Secretary of State for War to reduce that eight days training, say to five days, would not leave them a single working day of any value at all. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the subsection.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 28, to leave out Subsection (b)." — (Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BUCHANANsaid the same considerations applied to this Amendment as to the previous one. What the Government were doing was merely to put into the clause the ipsissima verba of the Militia Act. Nobody had complained of the provision, and it was clearly desirable that the power should be continued. He could not accept the Amendment.
*MR. COURTHOPEsaid the hon. Gentleman had not touched his objection. In the Militia Act the minimum was not eight days, but a much longer period. He regarded eight days as far too short a period. It was perfectly ridiculous to retain power to reduce it further.
*COLONEL WALKERpointed out that the Secretary of State had on the previous Amendment to Subsection (a) stated that these subsections could only be enforced by an Order in Council, which entailed the necessity of Papers in reference thereto lying on the Table of each House for thirty days. To use so ponderous a method of extending a training from fifteen days to thirty days, as in Subsection (a) or in diminishing the days of training from fifteen days to less, as in Subsection (b) must make the inclusion of these subsections in this clause inoperative, and if they were essential to the Bill they ought to be embodied under some other clause, whore the machinery to enforce thorn might be more easily set in motion.
MR. COURTHOPEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. COURTHOPEmoved to omit subsection (c) providing that His Majesty in Council might "Order that in any year the annual training of all or any part of the Territorial Force be dispensed with." He said that was a dangerous and mischievous power to give to a Government. If pressure was put upon them by the Party keen on anti-militarism they might give way in order to save so many hundred thousand pounds. He did not suggest for a moment that the present Government were likely to exercise the power, but he knew that a certain section of their followers would like them to do so. He bogged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 31, to leave oat subsection (c)." —(Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BUCHANANsaid he could add very little to what he had already stated

755
in refusing previous Amendments. The cardinal reason for the maintenance of this subsection was the same as that which had induced the Government to maintain the previous one. They merely asked for the continuance of a power which had existed for many years in regard to the Militia. There had been no complaint in regard to it, and therefore they were warranted in asking that the power should be continued.
MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid that some years ago there was a serious epidemic of smallpox in Glasgow, and it would have been absolute folly at that time to gather the battalions into camp. It was not done, and it seemed to him a very good thing to have power under such circumstances to dispense with the annual training of the Volunteers.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that in the event of a serious epidemic it would be contrary to public health to call out a corps, and of course the corps ought not to be called out.
*Colonel HERBERTmoved an Amendment to provide that a member of the Territorial Force might receive instruction "with his own or other unit of the Regular or Territorial Forces." He said that his object was to meet a difficulty which was very well known to all officers connected with the Auxiliary Forces, especially in the case of recruits. The Amendment, if adopted, would make it possible for a man to perform part or the whole of his training with another unit than that to which he legally belonged. It frequently happened that a man, owing to the circumstances of his ordinary employment, was obliged to move from one place to another. He did not wish to sever his connection with the regiment to which he belonged, but it might be impossible in the circumstances in which he found himself to carry out the recruit's training or possibly the annual training with the corps in which he had enlisted. Under these circumstances it was merely a matter of administrative arrangement that the man should be allowed to perform those duties with the most convenient unit that
756
happened to be available. If he happened to be at a place where there was a garrison of Regular troops, he would gain a great advantage in being allowed to perform his duties with the Regular Force.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 35, after the word 'instruction' to insert the words,' with his own or other unit of the Regular or Territorial Forces."'—(Colonel Herbert.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. BUCHANANsaid this was a reasonable and sensible proposal, but he thought the words were unnecessary, for there was power already to do what his hon. and gallant friend proposed.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that, if the Government were in cordial sympathy with the Amendment, there could surely be no objection to inserting the words in the Bill. What they wanted was an efficient Territorial Force, and no difficulty should be put in the way of the men getting the necessary training.
*COLONEL HERBERTasked his hon. friend to state where the power was to be found. He had failed to find it in the Bill.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEwas understood to say that a man could be transferred from one unit to another with his own consent.
*COLONEL HERBERTsaid he did not wish to press the Amendment, though he thought if the words were put in they would make the matter clearer.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not understand why there should be any reluctance to accept an obligation on the part of the War Office in drafting regulations to reserve this right to members of the Territorial Forces. The Amendment was a very modest and simple one. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had taken rather a harsh line towards the Volunteers. The Amendment would be very highly valued by the Volunteer Forces and he could not understand why the instruction should not be made mandatory on the War Office.
MAJOR SEELYasked his hon. friend whether he could not give the Committee any further assurance on this point. It was of the utmost importance that a man should be able to train with any unit. He understood that that could be done under Subsection (3), Clause 14, "in accordance with orders and regulations under this part of this Act." If that was so, his point would be made good; but if not, he would press it in every way. The Amendment was a corollary of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the previous night.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there was nothing in the words of the section to prevent an Order in Council being issued which would give power to a Volunteer to train with another unit than his own; but he gave an undertaking that the right of training referred to in the Amendment should find a place in the regulations to be issued under the Order in Council.
*COLONEL HERBERTsaid that on that understanding he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:—
Mr. ASHLEYmoved to leave out the word "extending," and to insert the word "varying." An extraordinary state of things would arise under the clause as it stood. The clause ran that—
"Before any Order in Council is made under this Act providing for preliminary training or extending the period of annual training, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses, before the expiration of those thirty days, presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall he taken, without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order."
That was to say, that the Order should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament if it extended the period of training, but if the period of training was to be reduced the Order was not to lie on the Table. His contention was that it was equally important that Parliament should have the opportunity of expressing an
758
opinion on the action of the Government, whether the period of training were extended or reduced. In fact he thought it was, if anything, more important that Parliament should have a say in the matter if the period of training was to be reduced.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 38, to leave out the word 'extending,' and insert the word 'varying." — (Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'extending' stand part of the clause."
Mr. BUCHANANsaid that the substance of the clause was that all Orders in Council which dealt with preliminary training were to be laid on the Table of the House for a period of thirty days. The distinction pointed out by the hon. Member was made because it was recognised that the increase of obligations on any individual or corps of the Territorial Forces was a matter which should be brought to the cognisance of Parliament, and that Parliament should have the opportunity of objecting to extending the period of training. It was on that ground that the words in the clause were inserted.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he. heartily supported the Amendment. In his opinion it was in the interests not only of the Territorial Forces, but of the welfare of the nation that the House should be able to express an opinion upon any proposal to lessen the amount of training. Some hon. Members thought that the preliminary training of the Artillery branch of the Territorial Forces was already insufficient, and if that were to be limited still further the House should have notice of it, so that it could be discussed freely. If it was intended to place further restrictions on the joint Territorial Force it appeared that the matter had to be brought before Parliament, but if it was desired to reduce the period of training the House was to have nothing to do with it. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which he was sure would not interfere with any regulations which the War Office might find it necessary to make in altering the time of training.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16: —
LORD BALCARRESmoved the omission of the first subsection with a view of obtaining from the representatives of the War Office their views on the important question of the training of the Territorial Force on embodiment. As drafted, the subsection laid it down that immediately upon and by virtue of the issue of a proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out on permanent service it should be lawful for His Majesty to order the Army Council from time to time to give and when given to revoke or vary such directions as might seem necessary or proper for embodying all or any part of the Territorial Force. He thought it right that when the Army Reserve was called out on permanent service the embodiment of the Territorial Force should follow, but the vital point was what were the circumstances under which the territorial soldiers were to be trained? They had been frequently told by the Secretary of State for War that six months training should be given to the Territorial Force, but it was admitted that there was nothing in the Bill giving a guarantee that that should be the case, and he suggested that there ought to be put in this clause, which was the embodiment clause, some tangible proof that in the belief of the Government six months training was required. it was a very grave matter, perhaps the gravest in the hill. The assumption on the part of the War Office was that six months grace would on the declaration of war be received by this country before a force came to attack our shores.
*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the clause provided that where, under any such proclamation, directions had been issued for calling out all the men belonging to the first class of the Army Reserve, the Army Council should within one month after such directions had been issued issue directions for embodying all the men belonging to the Territorial Force. The question of the period of training of the troops did not arise on this clause.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he merely wished to point out that the six months
760
grace which the right hon. Gentleman pre-supposed in regard to this country was absolutely opposed to the experience of all wars. It was opposed to the experience of the Franco-German War and of the Russo-Japanese War, which afforded irrefragible proof that no such grace would be afforded during which troops could be trained. He thought on this clause the War Office should tell them frankly why they considered the embodiment should be postponed until the crisis had arisen. Why, the danger having arisen, should this mystic period of six months be chosen for the training of troops to meet a foreign force which had been trained for a considerably longer period? As, however, the point did not arise on this clause he would not pursue it, but if the Chairman would indicate the clause on which the subject could be debated he would be very much indebted to him.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 6, to leave out Subsection (1)." — (Lord Balcarres.)
Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BUCHANANsaid the noble Lord had moved the omission of the subsection upon a subject which under the ruling of the Chair they could not discuss at that moment, and he did not think it, would be right or proper for him to deal with the matter, except to say that a study of the clause would, he thought, show the rat ionale of the system proposed by his right hon. friend. The noble Lord assumed that the previous training of the Territorial Force was so small as to be of no value, and that the subsequent training would not be sufficient for the purpose which they had in view. But he could not believe that. He would not, however, be led away into the discussion of a matter which was clearly outside the scope of the clause. The clause dealt with the procedure of embodiment, and not with that of training, and it provided that on the Reserve being called out a discretion was to be given as to the calling out of the Territorial Force. Precautions were taken against any abuse of that power in the latter part of the clause, securing that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering the matter, and if

761
it was prorogued or adjourned, should be summoned for the purpose. He did not think that it was possible at that juncture to embark upon the discussion of the subject which the noble Lord had invited them to consider.
LORD BALCARRESsaid, under the circumstances, us his question was out of order, and the reply of the Under-Secretary was very unsatisfactory, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."
*MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid that the clause was a marked example of a characteristic common to many parts of the Bill. It was a piece of sheer make-believe from beginning to end, and only called old things by new names. This part of the Bill was purely mischievous, for what was provided for in the clause would not take place. There would be no embodiment of the Territorial Force as proposed in the clause. The supposition was that there would be a Territorial Force of 300,000 men. No one had told the House what the force was going to do. But they were presumably to be embodied at the outbreak of a great war, and by law the 300,000 men were going to take their places in the ranks, and to remain there subject to the penalties of desertion for a time that had never been specified, though it was supposed to be for six months. When war broke out the corps belonging to Woolwich, Elswick, the Post Office, and other Departments bound up with the Government service were to be enrolled for service, but it was a farce to imagine that the Government could embody these corps for a six months training. This was not a matter of conjecture. General Mackinnon, the present Director of Auxiliary Forces was asked what could be done in the emergency of a great war in the direction of using the Volunteers as units for the purposes of the war. General Mackinnon said it would be impossible to think of calling out the Volunteers as units, but said he was confident that out of London they could obtain two composite regiments and
762
out of the City of Glasgow, in which there were thousands of Volunteers, one, —not one unit but one composite regiment from all the Volunteers in Glasgow. What could be said of London and Glasgow and what was the matured judgment of General Mackinnon furnished an idea of what would take place in all the great cities and all over the country. In order to discuss this matter seriously they had to imagine the emergency of some great war. In the history of this country it would be found that we had been at war in the north-west corner of Europe more often than in any other part of the world, and he could imagine a great conflict in which we were engaged in which we had to uphold our treaty rights in the northwest corner of Europe. Was it seriously contended or was it the mere make-believe of this Bill that the Government wore going to send round the fiery cross to all our great cities and rural districts, not the fiery cross of Scott's poem, but a fiery cross to selected houses, and say that those men were to come out and leave their business for five, six, or twelve months on the penalty of desertion? The thing was impossible. They had first to exclude from the category of men who were to be called out those whom the public service would not allow to undertake this obligation at all. When the Government talked about 300,000 men why did not they tell the Committee that tens of thousands of those men would not be allowed to come out. He could imagine a war in which the Army was not engaged, but he could not imagine a serious war in which this country was engaged in which the Navy would not take part, and how many men were there in the arsenals who were ancillary to the Navy who were enrolled in the Volunteers and who would be enrolled in this county council Army? Not one of those men could come out. Then there were the great railways. He was looking recently at the monument which had been put up at Euston Station to the men who lost their lives in the South African War, and a noble monument it was to the memory of those who had fallen. But, after all, they were a very small number of the vast mass of railway employees. And there was not a manager of a railway company who would not tell them that the demand made on the railway companies in

763
the war was a source of great embarrassment to them. Let them take the works at Crewe. How many of the men composing the personnel of the Crewe works could they call out for a six months embodiment? The hon. Member for Clitheroe would be able to tell them perhaps better than anybody else what would be the result to any of the great industries of Lancashire if, without preparation beforehand, they were suddenly to call out from the mills of Lancashire for six months all the men now enlisted in the Volunteers. It would lead to a demoralisation of business which would be infinitely more serious than the lack of men in such an emergency. It might be perfectly true that in other countries they did mobilise and demoralise the industries of the country, but in that case everything was prepared. The rain fell upon the just and unjust alike. But in this case they said to the residents in the same street that one should be taken and four left. Who was to be the man to be taken? They were told that the man of this county council Army was to be of a very high quality. The hon. and gallant Member for the Aborcrom by Division had said, as had also the right hon. Gentleman, that the best man in peace was the best man in war. He did not quite agree, but were they to take that man away from his business for six months? Was that going to be tolerated? The only way in which the Government could carry this Bill was by concealing these things. They were not playing fairly with the people of the country. They talked vaguely about six months mobilisation, but they dared not put it in the Bill. They talked about mobilising 300,000 men, but they dared not put it in the Bill that they were going to call these men away from their occupations. If they were serious in this Bill, which they were not, and if they were really thinking of a fighting force, they would have to do what any reasonable man would do when he called out an army. They would have to deduct the inevitable number of casualties for sickness. Let the Under-Secretary of State for India go to the War Office and see what had to be done on the occasion, the emergency of war. Let him look at the nominal lists of regiments and then ask the Intelligence Department what the difference was between the roll of the
764
Army as it stood and the roll in the Intelligence Department as tested by the requirements of war. When that test was applied this clause of embodiment went out. They had to exclude all those who wore inefficient, all those who could not be spared on public or commercial grounds, and they would have to exclude a very large class because they were the breadwinners, and could not be spared by their families. He had already alluded to the casualties from sickness or physical infirmity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Abercromby Division and the right hon. Gentleman were never tired of telling the Committee that we must rely on the patriotism of the people; but that did not carry them very far. They had to look to reasonable probabilities. Hon. Members no doubt were familiar with what took place in the great American Civil War. That war was a war fought for national existence on the soil of the belligerents. Large numbers of volunteers were embodied under similar conditions to those contemplated by this Bill. They went out for a time, and what happened? They were beaten at Bull's Run and they all began to go home. They said they must attend to their business. Then some of the generals broke every law of the land and said they would shoot them if they attempted to go. Some got home and President Linco'n had to take powers from Congress to compel the men to remain in the ranks. He submitted that it was not reasonable to palm off on the country a proposition of this kind and allow the people to think that in time of war we were going to get 300,000 valid Volunteers because this clause had been stuck in the Bill. He felt that here they had touched one of the very few real points of the Bill. All the talk that had gone before was nothing, because he thought after all the talk the Volunteers would be in the same condition as they were now. But this matter was of real importance, and he asked the Financial Secretary if ho would represent to the Secretary of State the desirability of adding to the large number of memoranda with which lie was credited one more Memorandum which would give an approximate estimate of the number of men of the Territorial Force who would be available, and whom it would be possible to assemble for

765
six months, or anything like it, in the milliner contemplated in this clause. Until then he would respectfully submit that they were entirely in the dark; that the Government were playing with words and not dealing with things. However anxious the Committee might be to see this county council Army called into existence, no one was anxious to vote £3,000,000 to call an army into existence which, when called up for service, would be 50 per cent. below its strength. The Committee ought to be informed as to what was a fair estimate of the number of men that could be called out and kept out for six months. He would also like to know what answer there was to the statement made over and over again by those who had thought much and earnestly about this subject. What was the answer to the problem put by those, with some of whom he did not altogether agree, but whose motives ho greatly respected and admired—the members of the National Service League—what answer was to be given to the problem which they propounded? They said, "How are you going to justify to the people of this country the call which will be made for foreign war, or it may be for home war, in case of emergency, upon one section of the community?" It would be a very small section of the community in any case. His right hon. friend held the view that they could safely rely on the individual option of the person enrolled as to whether he would go to war or not. They were taking away that right. They were saying that a certain number of persons, not because they were wiser or more foolish, or better or worse, not because they were more competent or less competent than their neighbours, not because they had a greater or less interest at stake than their neighbours, but because they happened in peace time to be enrolled in the county council Army, were therefore liable to leave their business and employments to become part of the standing Army of the country. The two questions which he had to ask, and to which he would very much like an answer, were, first, whether they would have an analysis which would explain to them what portion of the force could not, by virtue of their circumstances, be embodied at all, and, in the second place, what was the answer to the just feeling of indignation there would
766
be on the part of men who found that they were taken from their employment and their chance of livelihood to servo the nation when their neighbours on either side were left untouched.
MR. MYERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in discussing this matter of the county council Army. He believed that they were discussing the Territorial Army.
MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid the Bill stated that instead of using the word "soldier" they were to say "man" of the Territorial Force. The Secretary of State had declined to give a name to this "man" of the Territorial Force, and he had himself, therefore, suggested a name which he thought would be appropriate. The word "soldier" had been ruled out, and the duty of finding a name had been left to him by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR, ASHLEYsaid the right bon. Gentleman had asked two very pointed questions, and ho thought that in common courtesy there ought to be some reply from the Secretary for War.
MR. HALDANEsaid the answer was very simple. This carefully considered clause was the very pith and essence of the proposal. They did not intend to have any analysis, such as had been suggested, as to who would come out and who would not come out. They trusted that in a great emergency, for which alone the clause provided, that people would do their duty; and, more than that, that employers of labour, Government departments, and everybody concerned who could exercise control in the matter would likewise do their duty. To say that that was unreal and a sham was to make a charge against the seriousness of the nation. The clause was one of the most important in the Bill, and they would certainly adhere to it.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not had the fortune or misfortune to hoar his speech. He had asked two simple questions. He wanted to know how many of these people would be available. There were tens of thousands who not only could

767
not come out, but who ought not to come out. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell him how many men there were engaged in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, at the works at Elswick, and in various Government employments who could not be sacrificed when war came—if he told him how many of these men could not be spared from Government employment and all subsidiary and ancillary employments, because they would be working double shift in time of war, then they would understand where they were. But until he did that, it was of no use the right hon. Gentleman waving his flag and saying he was not going to give particulars.
MR. HALDANEsaid he fancied he now saw what was at the root of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. The right hon. Gentleman thought that they intended to enlist into the Territorial Force men whose services would be required in their various employments at homo at the time war broke out. That was the old confused proceeding which characterised the Auxiliary Forces at the present time, and which had caused a good deal of their inefficiency. But, as for saying that when they had got men under an obligation like this, they were not to be relied on to come forward, the right hon. Gentleman's own procedure was the refutation of it. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, when he was in office, to constitute a short service Army. Men were to be two years with the colours, and a very long time with the Reserve. The battalions were to be very small, only 500 in establishment, but they were to produce a very great strength of people with a very long time in the Reserve. They were people in civil employments in large numbers. The right hon. Gentleman did not doubt that his people would come forward. Neither did he doubt that the very sensible idea which entered his mind in connection with his proposals would be realised in the present scheme. His answer to the
768
right hon. Gentleman's question was, first, that they intended to eliminate the class of people who could not come forward; and, secondly, that they were acting on the very same principle as the right hon. Gentleman had acted on himself, in their conviction that they would get the men.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he must be allowed to refer to the unusual circumstance that the Minister in charge of the Bill should describe a particular clause as containing the whole pith of his scheme, yet, when that clause came on give no explanation of it, nor any argument to show that the whole of his plan hinged upon it.
MR. HALDANE: I did, on the Second Reading.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman went through the clause on the Second Reading, or that he gave an explanation of it as it stood. But he was well warranted in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had never told the House in so many words that, for example, the Post Office Volunteers were no longer to form part of the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. That corps was an illustration; many more could be adduced. Many Volunteers must from this moment understand that they were ruled out from the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. All that sprang from the plan which the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon pursuing, against the advice showered upon him. If there were to be in the force no men who could not be called out the moment the Army Reserve was called on, the right hon. Gentleman was ruling out a very considerable section of the Volunteer Force as they knew it. The Secretary of State had given no explanation except such as they had heard on the Second Reading. But how large were the powers which this clause conferred? If any part of the Army Reserve were called out, it was in the power of the

769
right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, to embody the whole Territorial Force. The obligation was, that when part of the first class Army Reserve were called out, then he must embody the men of the Territorial Force. Was that not right? He understood that if a small part of the Army Reserve were called out, as for instance in 1882 in the Egyptian war, when 3,000 or 4,000 men were sent out, then it was in the power of the Secretary of State to call out the 300,000 men who happened at that time to be serving in any branch of the Territorial Force. That was, he gathered, an accurate statement of the clause. If he was misrepresenting the power lurking in the clause let him be corrected, He was not misinterpreting it. It was a very grave occasion when the Secretary of State for War told them that he was going to eliminate from the Auxiliary Forces all the men who could not answer his summons in time of war, while at the same time, in the Bill, if it became an Act, he took powers to call out 2,000 men of the Reserve, and, with thorn, the 300,000 men who happened to be in the Territorial Force.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he appreciated the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, and he understood that there were Members opposite who objected to universal training. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was a very strong opponent of anything in the nature of universal training. The weakness which he had shown in this particular clause was really not a weakness of the measure; it was a weakness which must always, as his right hon. friend had said, be inherent in any scheme under our voluntary system of enlistment for the Army. It gave rise, of course, to numerous anomalies, and when there was a national emergency the only means of meeting it was by the universal patriotism of the nation. As long as we retained the voluntary system we were bound to face the difficulty that many men who were members of the
770
Territorial Army would find it necessary to remain in their civil employment and to ask for exemption. It was exactly the same under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, and it would be the same under any proposal, he ventured to say, which could be devised by any Secretary of State for War, as long as we retained the voluntary system. The proposal of the Government set up a machinery which, to his mind, was very useful and serviceable, and he hoped that they would get a considerable proportion of the 300,000 men in time of national emergency. It would set up a nucleus of those who would be able to come out, and to that nucleus, in time of emergency, would be added many others whose patriotism would cause them to join. That was, of course, the best they could expect from any scheme that could be devised under the voluntary system. He did not think that they need be in the least deterred by anything that had boon said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as regarded the difficulties that would present themselves in time of war. He thought they could rely on the fact that this power in the hands of the administration to embody certain units of the Territorial Army, though many men would have to be exempted, would form the nucleus of the Territorial Army which they hoped would be capable of useful service in the field.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid the Committee were at a disadvantage, because the Secretary of State for War had been imperfectly informed as to what had taken place during his absence. They were all most anxious to help the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Chippenham who had just spoken was an advocate of national service, which was a form of conscription, and that would be the inevitable result of this Bill.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I never said so.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that was the inference he drewerom the hon. Baronet's remarks. There were many Auxiliary corps, like the Civil Service Volunteers and the Post Office Volunteers, who were most efficient: were they to be called up immediately a Proclamation was issued? Were the Woolwich Arsenal Volunteers and the Sheffield Volunteers, in his own constituency, who were skilled artisans and mechanics, to be called up? There were large numbers of Volunteers in the iron and steel foundries of Sheffield, but upon the outbreak of war it would be impossible for them all to be called up for six months' training if the country were to have the shot and shell necessary to carry on a campaign. What stops had the right hon. Gentleman taken to moot this difficulty in regard to the largo number of Volunteers in Sheffield? He thought they were entitled to some explicit declaration from the Government upon the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman had not quite made up his mind upon the subject, perhaps ho would consent to postpone the clause and bring it up again on some future occasion, when he could lay before the House the definite intentions of the Government. As the matter now stood, many corps were threatened with immediate disbandment.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he quite recognised the importance of the debate and the subject they were considering, but there were other subjects they would like an opportunity of discussing which affected them as individuals. One subject upon which they felt very strongly was the question of courts-martial. That was considered by the Labour Party to be a very serious matter, and he appealed to the Committee to allow the division on
772
the subject under discussion to be taken in order that they might devote the remaining time at their disposal to the important subject of courts-martial.
MR. McCRAEsaid the objections advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield applied in greater degree to the Volunteer Force as at present established. He could not understand those who wanted compulsory service objecting to the clause, because it was a step in the direction of systematising the Auxiliary Forces; and he could not understand those who were against compulsory service objecting to it, because it was a step which ought to obviate the necessity of going farther on that road. He could not understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon saying that the clause was only a make-believe. He challenged comparison of this proposal with anything introduced by the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor in office.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that by this Bill they were asking the Volunteer force to take the place of the Militia, and that fact marked the fundamental fallacy underlying the Bill. Having done away with the Militia, they had to make the Volunteers ready to take part in war if any part of the Reserve were called out; but the Secretary of State had admitted that very considerable sections of them could not be called out at all. In the past they had always relied for immediate actual military service upon the Regular Army, with something to support it like the Militia and the Yeomanry. There were now only two courses open—either universal compulsory service or fostering the Militia and the Yeomanry and forces of that description. To turn the Volunteers into a kind of sham

773
Militia was a false policy, and could never succeed.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he now heard for the first time that large deductions of the very best men had to be made from the 300,000 men who would be called out when wanted. That fact ought to be put prominently before the country. Under this scheme they were diminishing the number and quality of the force, and it was only fair to the Committee and to the country that it should be clearly understood that what was being proposed was not 300,000, but that number minus about 40,000 of the best men.
MR. HALDANEsaid the substance of the matter was that the right hon. Gentleman thought they ought to keep a certain number of men who could not possibly be available if the force were brought out. They wore comparatively a small fraction. The people engaged at Woolwich should not be enrolled in time of war; they would be required for other purposes. In the great industrial centres the good sense and the patriotism of the employers would have to be brought to bear to determine who could and who could not go. The procedure of the clause was very simple. The control of Parliament over these things was provided for, and it was not in the least likely that the powers would be used unreasonably.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the point he desired to make. It was no answer to say that the late Government proposed to create an Army Reserve, all of whom would have to go into civil life and come out again to take service in the Army. Everybody knew the liability of these men, and they were not
774
engaged in he great industries which had been referred to. The hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Edinburgh had asked what the late Government had done to provide for the expansion of the Army in War. He would give him an immediate answer. They had taken practical steps to create an Infantry Reserve of 140,000 men to stand between the country and the necessity of embodying the Volunteer Force. In 1900 the whole of the Army Reserve was embodied. Did the hon. Member mean that it would have been desirable or was necessary at that time to call out the whole of the Volunteer Force for six months?
MR. McCRAEsaid it would not have been necessary if the Government of the day had not prevented the Volunteers from volunteering.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was only one war in which we had been engaged in which it could reasonably be said that this country was in danger of invasion, and yet the duty was to be imposed on the Government of calling out these men. They had had no answer to the simple question—what were to be the deductions from this Army? They were trusting the safety of the country to something the extent or value of which they had no power of measuring. He would like to put it on record that they had asked for a plain and simple statement of fact on a matter of the first importance regarding this Army on which the country was asked to spend £3,000,000, and they were unable to got any satisfactory answer.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid there was another important matter which had been overlooked. They were led to understand that the Territorial Army would be embodied, on the outbreak of hostilities, for

775
six months. Was that six months' limit still maintained by the Government, or was the embodiment to be for four or five years after the outbreak of war? The Government were asking for 300,000 men at so much a day to undergo preliminary training, and on the outbreak of war to be trained further for six months; but in the clause there was no limitation as to how long the Territorial Forces would be required to serve after that period. There was another point which had escaped attention. If, on the outbreak of war, there was not a sufficient staff of signallers and engine drivers to be drawn upon from the Volunteers, the right hon. Gentleman would have to turn round to the railway companies, and appeal to them for
an efficient staff. But none of those men would have any knowledge of the conditions of a soldier's life. They would not come under the civil authorities, but under military officers, and being utterly unacquainted with military discipline and the severity of military law, they would be at a great disadvantage. He thought that the Secretary of State for War should seriously consider the desirability of obtaining that desirable class of recruits for his Territorial Forces. At present there was no encouragement for training that class of railway men
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 275; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 213.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Esslemont, George Birnie

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Samuel T.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Agnew, George William

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Everett. R. Lacey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Byles, William Pollard

Ferens, T. R,

Alden, Percy

Cairns, Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cameron, Robert

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Chance, Frederick William

Findlay, Alexander

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Fuller, John Michael F.

Astbury, John Meir

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fullerton. Hugh

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Glover, Thomas

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cleland, J. W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Barker, John

Clough, William

Grant, Corrie

Barlow,John Emmott(Somers't

Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

Griffith, Ellis J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Cooper, G. J.

Gulland, John W.

Beale, W. P.

Corbett,CH (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Beck. A. Cecil

Cory, Clifford John

Hall, Frederick

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cremer, William Randal

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Crombie, John William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bennett, E. N.

Crooks, William

Harmsworth,R.L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Bethell,Sir.J.H. (Essex,Romf'rd

Crosfield, A. H.

Hart-Davies, T.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crossley, William J.

Harvey,W. E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

Billson, Alfred

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo

Harwood. George

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Haworth. Arthur A.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brace, William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Helme, Norval Watson

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henry, Charles S.

Brigg, John

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Edwards, Enoch (Hartley)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brodie, H. C.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Higham, John Sharp

Brooke, Stopford

Elibank, Master of

Hobart, Sir Robert

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Erskine, David C.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H

Bryce, J. Annan

Essex, R. W

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Holt, Richard Durning

Menzies, Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Spicer, Sir Albert

Horniman, Emslie John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stanger, H. Y.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Montgomery, H. G.

Steadman, W. C.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hyde, Clarendon

Morrell, Philip

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth. Percy H.

Morse, L. L.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Myer, Horatio

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jackson, R. S.

Napier, T. B.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Jardine, Sir J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sutherland, J. E.

Jenkins, J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thomasson, Franklin

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Kekewich, Sir George

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

Tomkinson, James

Kelley, George D.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ure, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pollard, Dr.

Verney, F. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central

Vivian, Henry

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Walsh,Stephen

Lambert, George

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Lamont, Norman

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Rees, J. D.

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Leese, SirJoseph F. (Accrington

Rendall, Athelstan

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

Lehmann, R. C.

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Waring, Walter

Lever,A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Richardson, A.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lever,W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waterlow, D. S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Watt, Henry A,

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfo'd

Weir, James Galloway

Lough, Thomas

Robinson, S.

Whitbread, Howard

Lupton, Arnold

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rogers, F.E. Newman

Whitehead, Rowland

Lynch, H. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Samuel, Herbert. L.(Cleveland)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Mackarness, Frederic C

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wiles, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Schwann,Sir C. E(Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Macnamara. Dr. Thomas G.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Williams,Llewellyn(Carmarth'n

M'Callum, John M.

Pears, J. E.

Wilson, Hon.C.H.W.(Hull, W.)

M'Crae, George

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Maddison, Frederick

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

Marnham,F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Pease.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dalrymple, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Doughty, Sir George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carlile, E. Hildred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Arnold-Forster,Rt, Hn.Hugh O

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Ashley, W. W.

Cave. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn. Sir H

Cavendish, Rt, Hn.Victor C.W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Banbury. Sir Frederick George

Clynes, J. R.

Fell, Arthur

Baring,Capt.Hn.G (Winchester

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Fletcher, J. S.

Barnes, G. N.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Courthope, G. Loyd

Gill, A. H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craig,Captain James( Down,E.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Boyle, Sir Edward

Craik, Sir Henry

Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

778

779

Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Morpeth, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Hills, J. W,

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Stone. Sir Benjamin

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

Summerbell, T.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Neild, Herbert

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hudson, Walter

Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Talbot,Rt.Hn.,J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Hunt, Rowland

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jowett, F. W.

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thornton, Percy M.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareh'm

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.

Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Long,Rt,Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George R.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset. W.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Younger, George

Macpherson, J. T.

Sassoon, Sir Ed ward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Seddon, J.

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Shackleton, David James

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

And, it being after half-past ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 6th May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 264;

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dalziel, James Henry

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brigg, John

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Agnew, George William

Brodie, H. C.

Davies, M Vaughan(Cardigan

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Brunner,J.F.L.( Lanes.,Leigh)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Edwards, Frank (Radnnor)

Baring, Godfrey ('Isle of Wight)

Cameron, Robert

Elibank, Master of

Barker, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Erskine. David C.

Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somers't

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Essex, R. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Chance, Frederick William

Essslemont, George Birnie

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Beale, W. P.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ferens, T. R.

Beauchamp, E.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Beck, A. Cecil

Cleland, J. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, William

Findlay, Alexander

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Bennett, E. N.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bethell.Sir J.H.(Essex,R'mf'rd

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cory, Clifford John

Grant, Corrie

Billson, Alfred

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Crombie, John William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Black, Arthur W.

Crosfield, A. H.

Grey, Rt. W. Hon. Sir Edward

Boulton, A. C. F.

Crossley, William J,

Griffith, Ellis J.

to dispose of the Business to be concluded.
Clause 19, drafting Amendment agreed to.
Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 145. (Division List No. 214.)

Gulland, John W.

Maclean. Donald

Seely, Major J. B.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mancamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford-)

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hall, Frederick

M'Crae, George

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn's-sh.

Maddison, Frederick

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hart-Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spicer, Sir Albert

Haslam, Lewis (Monmonth)

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

Stanger, H. Y.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Helme, Norval Watson

Menzies, Walter

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Higham, John Sharp

Mond, A.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Holt, Richard Durning

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbu'y

Hope, W.Bateman( Somerset,N.

Morse, L. L.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Horniman, Emslie John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Myer, Horatio

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Napier, T. B.

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Thomasson, Franklin

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Thompson, J.W.H.(S'mers't,E.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Tomkinson, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Jackson,R. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Ure, Alexander

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Verney, F. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Partington, Oswald

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Walters, John Tudor

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearson, Sir W.D(Colchester)

Ward, W.Dudley(Southampt'n

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Waring, Walter

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason,John Cathcart( Orkney)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pollard, Dr.

Waterlow, D. S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster)

Priestley, W.E. B.( Bradford,E.)

Weir, James Galloway

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitbread, Howard

Lambert, George

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lamont, Norman

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Rendall, Athelstan

Whitehead, Rowland

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whiteley,JohnHenry (Halifax)

Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wiles, Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Robinson, S.

Williams,Llewelyn( Carmarthen

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williamson, A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Yoxall, James Henry

Lynch, H. B.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechadel)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Seaverns, J. H.

Pease.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Alden, Percy

Barnes, G. N.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Byles, William Pollard

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Carlile, E. Hildred

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bell, Richard

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cave, George

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Balcarres, Lord

Boyle, Sir Edward

Clynes, J. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brace, William

Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

782

783

Collins,SirWmJ.(St.Pancras,W

Lime-Fox, G. R.

Seddon, J.

Cooper, G. J.

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.)

Shackleton, David James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lehmann, R.C.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col.A.R.

Smith,AbelH.(Hertford,East)

Craig,Captain James (Down,E.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool.Walton

Craik, Sir Henry

Long,Rt.Hn.Waltar(Dublin,S.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cremer, William Randal

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Steadman, W C.

Crooks, William

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dalrymple, Viscount

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Summerbell, T.

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sutherland. J. E.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dunoan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Talbot,Rt,Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

Thornton, Perey M.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fletcher, J. S.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Valentia, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Morpeth, Viscount

Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Gill, A. H.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Vivian, Henry

Glover, Thomas

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Nield, Herbert

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Walsh, Stephen

Harwood, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward.John(Stoke upon Trent)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Wardle, George J.

Hervey,F,W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Williams.,J. (Glamorgan)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hudson, Walter

Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hunt, Rowland

Richardson, A.

Younger, George

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Arthur Henderson and Mr.George Roberts.

Kelley, George D.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Kimber, Sir Henry

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Clause 20:—
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 314;
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 106. (Division List No. 215.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crossley, William,J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dalziel, James Henry

Jenkins, J.

Pollard, Dr.

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jones,SirD. Brynmor(Swansea

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Priestley,W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Rainy, A. Rolland

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea,Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Kekewich, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Dunne, Major E.Martin( Walsal1)

Kelley, George D.

Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richardson, A.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Elibank, Master of

Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Essex, R. W.

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Robertson,SirG.Scott( Bradf'd

Evans, Samuel T.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robinson, S.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lea,HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lever,A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland]

Findlay, Alexander

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller,John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lough, Thomas

Sears, J. E.

Gill, A. H.

Lupton, Arnold

Seaverns, J. H.

Glover, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seely, Major J. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shackleton, David James

Gooch, George Peabody

Lynch, H. B.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shaw, Rt.Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald.J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Sherwell, Arthur James

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Griffith. Ellis J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gulland, John W.

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Craie, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Kenna, Rt.Hon. Reginald

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hall, Frederick

M'Laren, Sir C. B. ( Leicester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Maddison, Frederick

Steadman, W. C.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hart-Davies. T.

Marks,G. Croydon(Launceston

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harvey,W. E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

Marnham, F. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harwood, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Menzies, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Summerbell, T.

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Perey Alport

Sutherland, J. E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Henry, Charles S

Montgomery, H. G.

Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Tennant,SirEdward(Salisbury

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

Tennant, H. J.(Berwickshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan, E.)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Myer, Horatio

Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Napier, T. B.

Thomasson, Franklin

Holland, Sir William Henry

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Tomkinson, James

Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ure, Alexander

Horniman, Emslie John

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Vivian, Henry

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker. James (Halifax)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hudson, Walter

Partington, Oswald

Walsh, Stephen

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearson,SirW. D. (Colchester)

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Jackson, R. S,

Philipps, Owen C, (Pembroke)

Wardle, George J,

786

787

Waring, Walter

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson,P.W.(St.Pancras, S.)

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax )

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Waterlow, D. S.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palme

Yoxall, James Henry

Watt, Henry A.

Wiles, Thomas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.

Weir, James Galloway

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Whitbread, Howard

Williamson, A.

Pease.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson,Hon.C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fletcher, J. S.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gardner, Ernest(Berks, East)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Ashley, W. W.

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Aahford

Rawlinson,JohnFrederiekPeel

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

Helmsley, Viscount

Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Baring,Capt.Hn.G( Winchester

Hill,Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

Hills, J. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Houston, Robert Paterson

Seddon, J.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorgeD.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Jowett, F. W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Boyle, Sir Edward

Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

Smith,AbelH.(Hertford, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey. John R.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Talbot,Rt.Hn..J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Cave, George

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Thomson, W.Mitchell.(Lanark)

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Dublin,S)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.Howard

Cochrane,Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Macpherson, J. T.

Warde, Col.C.E. (Kent, Mid.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Craig,CaptainJames( Down, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wortley,Rt.Hon. C. B.Stuart-

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Doughty, Sir George

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Nicholson,Wm.G.(Petersfield)

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Faber,GeorgeDenison(York)

Nield, Herbert

Fardell, Sir T. George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Fell, Arthur

Parkes, Ebenezer

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:—
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 261;

AYES.

Abraham, William(Rhondda)

Barker, John

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barlow,JohnEmmott(Somerset

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Billson, Alfred

Agnew, George William

Barran. Rowland Hirst

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Black, Arthur W.

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Beale, W. P.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Beck, A. Cecil

Brigg, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Asquith,Rt.Hon. HerbertHenry

Belloc,HilaireJoseph Peter R.

Brodie, H. C.

Astbury, John Meir

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Brooke, Stopford

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bennett, E. N.

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lanes.,Leigh)

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bryce, J.Annan

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 152. (Division List No. 216.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Pollard, Dr.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Buxton.Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Horniman, Emslie John

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Priestley,W.E.B.( Bradford,E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rainy, A. Rolland

Chance, Frederick William

Hutton. Alfred Eddison

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hyde, Clarendon

Rees, J. D.

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R, R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Richards,Thomas( W.Monm'th

Cleland, J. W.

Jackson, R. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Coats,SirT.Clen(Renfrew, W.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)

Robinson, S.

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cory, Clifford John

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cremer, William Randal

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Crombie, John William

King,Alfred John(Knutsford)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crosfield, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Sears, J. E.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

Lambert, George

Seely, Major J. B.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamont, Norman

Shaw,Charles Edw.(Stafford)

Davies,M. Vaughan-( Cardigan

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dewar,John A.(Inverness-sh.

Lehmann, R. C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunne.MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Levy, Maurice

Simon, John Allsebrook

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lough, Thomas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Elibank, Master of

Lupton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

Erskine, David C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Essex, R. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Stewart, Halley(Greenock)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Maedonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Maclean, Donald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Everett, R. Lacey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ferens, T. R,

M'Callum, John M.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Crae, George

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fiennes, Hon, Eustace

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Furness, Sir Christopher

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Gooch, George Peabody

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

Thomas,SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)

Grant, Corrie

Marnham, F. J.

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thomasson, Franklin

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Menzies, Walter

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Micklem, Nathaniel

Tomkinson, James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Molteno. Percy Alport

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Gulland, John W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ure, Alexander

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Montgomery. H. G.

Verney, F. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Walters, John Tudor

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morse, L. L.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)

Myer, Horatio

Waring, Walter

Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Napier, T. B.

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

Hart-Davies, T.

Newnes,SirGeorge(Swansea)

Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire,N. E.

Nicholson.CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Waterlow, D. S.

Harwood, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Watt, Henry A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nuttall, Harry

Weir, James Galloway

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Whitbread, Howard

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

White. J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon..S.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

White, Luke (York, E.R.

Herbert, T. Arnold( Wycombe)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitehead, Rowland

Higham, John Sharp

Pearson,SirW.D. (Colchester)

Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Whittaker,Sir ThomasPalmer

Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wiles, Thomas

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Williamson, A.

Wilson, P. W.(St, Pancras, S.)

Tellers fob the Ayes—Mr.

Wilson,Hon.C. H.W.(Hull,W.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Pease.

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Gardner, Ernest(Berks. East)

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, (J. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gill, A. H.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Glover, Thomas

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baker,JosephA.(Finsbury,E.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Helmsley, Viscount

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Banbury,SirFrederickGeorge

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Richardson, A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barnes, G. N.

Hills, J. W.

Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

Barrie,H.T. (Londonderry,N.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bell, Richard

Hudson, Walter

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Bowerman, C. W.

Jenkins, J.

Seddon, J.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shackleton, David James

Boyle, Sir Edward

Jowett, F. W.

Sheffield,Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Brace, William

Kelley, George D.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn. Col.W.

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

Byles, William Pollard

Lane-Fox, C. R,

Steadman, W. C.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

Summerbell, T.

Cave, George

Lee,Arthur H.( Hants.,Fareh'm

Sutherland, J. E.

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Liddell, Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood,Rt,Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.

Talbot,Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clynes, J. R.

Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin,S.

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)

Londsale, John Brownlee

Thornton, Percy M.

Cochrane, Hon.Thos.H. A. E.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Collins,SirWm. J. (S.Pancras, W

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard

Cooper, G. J.

Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

Vivian, Henry

Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walker,Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Walrond. Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Walsh, Stephen

Craig,CharlesCurtis( Antrim,S.

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Craig,CaptainJames(Down,E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent,Mid.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Wardle, George J.

Crooks, William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Dalyrmple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Doughty, Sir George

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wortley,Rt,Hon. C.B. Stuart-

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan,Robert( Lanark,Govan

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison(York)

Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fell, Arthur

O'Grady, J.

Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Forster, Henry William

Parker, James (Halifax)

Fullerton, Hugh

Parkes, Ebenezer

Clause 24, drafting Amendment agreed to.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 269;

AYES.

Abraham, Wiliam (Rhondda)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Acland, Francis Lyke

Allen.A.Acland (Christchurch)

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury, John Meir

Agnew, George William

Armstrong; W. C. Heaton

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Noes, 143. (Division List No. 217.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

Barker, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Barlow,JohnEmmott (Somers't

Gooch, George Peabody

Markham, Arthur Basil

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Grant, Corrie

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Greenwood, G. Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Greenwood, Hamar(York)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Beale, W. P.

Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

Menzies, Walter

Beauchamp, E.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Beck, A. Cecil

Gulland, John W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bell, Richard

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mond, A.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Belloc, Hilaire, Joseph Peter R.

Hall, Frederick

Montgomery, H. G.

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bennett, E. N.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morrell, Philip

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Morse, L. L.

Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Harmsworth,R. L(Caithn'ss-sh.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hart-Davies, T.

Myer, Horatio

Billson, Alfred

Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire,N.E.

Napier, T. B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harwood, George

Newnes, Sir George. (Swansea)

Black, Arthur W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholson,Charles N.( Doncast'r

Boulton, A. C. F.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hedges, A. Paget

Nussey, Thomas Willans Nuttall, Harry

Brigg, John

Helme, Norval Watson

Nuttall Harry

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Brodie, H. C.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Partington, Oswald

Brooke, Stopford

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Hope.W. Bateman( Somerset, N.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Pollard, Dr.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Price,Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Chance, Frederick William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford,E.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hyde, Clarendon

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rees, J. D.

Cleland, J. W.

Jackson, R. S.

Rendall, Athelstan

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th

Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, W.(Nuneaton)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

Cory, Clifford John

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Robinson, S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crombie, John William

Kekewich, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crosfield, A. H.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crossley, William J.

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dalziel, James Henry

Laidlaw. Robert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lambert, George

Sears, J. E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont. Norman

Seaverns, J. H.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Seely, Major J. B.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Leese.Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Dunne.Major E.Martin(Walsall

Lehmann, R. C.

Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards. Frank (Radnor)

Lewis, John Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, Rt, Hon. David

Simon, John Allsebrook

Erskine. David C.

Lough, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Essex, R. W.

Lupton, Arnold

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Esslemont, George Birnie

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Spicer, Sir Albert

Evans, Samuel T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanger, H. Y.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Stewart, Halley (Greenoek)

Ferens, T. R.

Maonamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ferguson. R. C. Munro

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Crae, George

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt, Hn. Reginald

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Fuller,John Michael F.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Walters, John Tudor

Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Whittaker,Sir Thomas Palmer

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

Wiles, Thomas

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Waring, Walter

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Williamson, A.

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, Hon. C.H.W. (Hull,W.)

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Thomasson, Franklin

Watt, Henry A.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset,E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Tomkinson, James

Wier, James Galloway

Yoxall, James Henry

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whitbread, Howard

Ure, Alexander

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Verney, F. W.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitehead, Rowland

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

Fullerton, Hugh

Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gill, A. H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Ashley, W. W.

Glover, Thomas

Remnant, James Farquharson

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn.Sir H.

Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Richardson, A.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Helmsley, Viscount

Roberts.S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring,Capt.Hn. G.(Winchest'r

Henderson,Arthur (Durham)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Barnes, G. N.

Hervey, F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool]

Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, J. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Bowerman, C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Seddon, J.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hudson, Walter

Shackleton, David James

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Brace, William

Jenkins, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford. East;

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jowett, P. W.

Smith,F. E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kelley, George D.

Starkey, John R.

Byles, William Pollard

Kennaway,Rt.Hon. Sir JohnH.

Steadman. W. C.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Summerbell, T.

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sutherland, J. E.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Clynes, J. R.

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.

Thornton. Percy M.

Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.

Valentia, Viscount

Cooper, G. J.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Col, Sir C. E. Howard

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Vivian. Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Walrond. Hon. Lionel

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Macpherson, J. T.

Walsh. Stephen

Craig,Captain James (Down,E.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Ward. John (Stoke upon Trent)

Craik, Sir Henry

Maddison, Frederick

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Crooks, William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wardle. George J.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Doughty, Sir George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wortley,Rt,Hon.C.B. Stuart-

Duncan,Robert Lanark,Govan

Nicholson, Wm.G. (Petersfield)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

O'Grady, J.

Fell, Arthur

Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Edmund Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

Forster, Henry William

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'clock