Commons Sitting of 19 June 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill. —As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. —Read the third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
Sir JOSEPH LEESE reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That the parties promoting the Selsey Water Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of William Parker Cogan, of 5, South Street, Chichester, Solicitor, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William Parker Cogan do attend the said Committee during the proceedings on the Selsey Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the said William Parker Cogan do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills during the proceeding* on the Selsey water Bill [Lords].

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
Sir HENRY KIMBER reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That Mr. C. J. O'Donnell, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the table

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. STUART WORTLEY: reported from the* Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Stuart Wortley to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C, in the place of Mr. Laurence Hardy.
Report to lie upon the table
Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords]. —Reported from the I Select Committee on Divorce Bills, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce (Validation) Bill [Lords]. —Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Murphy Grimshaw's Divorce(Validation) Bill [Lords], together with the Documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords: And that the Clerk do carry the same. — (Mr. Attorney -General)

PETITIONS.
  CONVENTUAL AND MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.
  Petitions for inquiry: From Perth; and, Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, —of the Building Regulations of the Board of Education for Public Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Regulations for Flying the Scottish Standard.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what are the regulations governing the flying of the Scottish Standard.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) My hon. friend will find the information he desires in a Circular now issued to the police authorities of which the following is a copy—
  "Adverting to Police Circular No. 512, issued from this office on the 16th March, 1907, I am directed by the Secretary for Scotland to inform you that numerous inquiries continue to be made as to the

  439
  practice to be observed in regard to the display of the flag variously described as the 'Scottish Standard' or the 'Scottish Lion Flag,' meaning the flag displaying the red lion rampant upon a yellow ground within a double tressure. Mr. Sinclair accordingly thinks it desirable to take this means of intimating that, although the flag in question represents one quartering of the Royal Standard, the consideration referred to in the above-mentioned circular does not apply with equal force, and that there is therefore no necessity to discourage the display of this flag.
  "I am to add that the full Royal Standard is the personal flag of the Sovereign, in Scotland as in England, and that the flying of this flag by unauthorised persons constitutes an informality of which the police, as already indicated, should take cognisance by drawing the attention of the responsible persons to the irregularity, but without challenging it in any more formal manner.
  "I am to explain that the foregoing observations apply solely to the case of hoisting the Royal Standard on a flagstaff, etc., and there is no objection to the use of this or any other flag when 'slung' or otherwise employed for decorative purposes."

  Promotion of Majors of Marines.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that for twenty-four years majors of marines have automatically received promotion to brevet lieutenant-colonel on the completion of seven years' service, irrespective of any qualifying examination for the substantive rank, and that this has been done under an Order in Council, whether the Board will take into consideration the hardship inflicted by the Memorandum issued by the Marine Office in January being brought into force immediately on issue, so that one officer who had assumed the higher rank before the receipt of the Memorandum on the Cape station had again to revert to the lower rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not desirable that an officer of the Royal Marines, who is not qualified for higher rank in his own corps, should be
  440
  given that higher rank in the Army. If, however, an officer has not had proper opportunities for passing, his case would be specially considered. Nothing is; known of an officer on the Cape station having assumed a higher rank and having had to revert to a lower rank. No officer would be justified in assuming a rank which is not conferred on him by proper authority.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the Order in Council of 1883 governing the promotion of majors of the Royal Marines has not been carried out in the case of two officers now serving; and whether any Order in Council amending the regulations for promotion has been promulgated.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson) The Order in Council indicated is that of 19th March, 1883, which provides that majors shall be "eligible" for promotion by brevet after certain specified length of service. Two officers now serving who have the qualifying length of service have not been recommended for this promotion by brevet, because they have not passed the examination for the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The Order in Council in question has not been amended.

  Chambers of Commerce and Sugar Bounties.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have reached the Colonial Office from various chambers of commerce in the Colonies and India as to the importance of preventing the reimposition of sugar bounties and the formation of cartels; and, if so, from what chambers of commerce.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Representations on the subject of the Sugar Convention have been received from the following chambers of commerce and similar bodies in the Colonies, as well as one from the Legislatures of Barbados and St. Kitts: —
  Agriculture and Commercial Society, Antigua.
  Westmoreland Sugar Planters' Association, Jamaica.
  Northside Sugar Planters' Association, Jamaica.
  Montreal Board of Trade.
  British Guiana Planters' Association.
  Chamber of Commerce, Georgetown, British Guiana.
  Chamber of Commerce of the Orange River Colony.
  Chamber of Commerce of Pietermaritzburg.
  Barbados Committee of Commerce.
  Barbados Agricultural Society.
  Chamber of Commerce, Singapore.
  Vancouver Board of Trade.
  British Guiana Board of Agriculture.
  Sierra Leone Chamber of Commerce.
  Chamber of Commerce, Geelong, Victoria.
  Charters Towers Chamber of Commerce, Queensland.
  Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Toronto.
  Chamber of Agriculture, Mauritius.
  Chamber of Commerce and Agricultural Society, Trinidad.
  As regards India I must refer the Hon. Member to the India Office.

  Naval Mechanicians on Sea-going ships.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the number of mechanicians who have been sent to each of the ships of the Channel and Atlantic fleets, with the number of engine-room artificers who have thus been displaced, and the economy in expenditure of money thereby represented.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Orders were given in March last for mechanicians who had recently been confirmed in that rating to be drafted to ships of the sea-going fleets. Under these orders forty-four mechanicians have been drafted to Channel, Atlantic, and Mediterranean fleets in the proportion of four to each ship, displacing twenty-two engine-room artificers. No economy in expenditure either in pay or victualling has been effected by this change.

  Engine Room Artificers at Gunnery and Torpedo Establishments.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the complement of engine-room artificers allowed to each of the gunnery and torpedo establishments for tenders, etc., to the boy artificers training establishments as instructors, and to the submarine services, respectively; what are the numbers now borne; and how, and when, it is proposed to fill the existing vacancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Out of the total number of 248 engine-room artificers allowed to the ships (and establishments enumerated in the hon. Member's Question all are borne except eleven, and these vacancies will be filled as men become available in the ordinary course from foreign service leave, training, etc.

  Engine-Room Artificers Required to Complete Nucleus Crews for Home Fleet.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the. number of engine-room artificers who are now at the depots of each home port above those required to complete the nucleus crews of ships in the Home Fleet, and the specific duties they are employed upon.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) As already stated, in reply to the hon. Member's Question of 5th June, the number of engine-room artificers now borne is sufficient to man the war fleet, but the numbers required to complete are not necessarily borne in the depots.

  Construction of Pier at Reenard, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the plans for the construction of a pier at Reenard, county Kerry, are now complete; and whether regard has been had to the necessity of providing for the landing of fish in large quantities and for the requirements of a steam ferry which formed part of the original scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The plans of the proposed works at Reenard Point are complete, but further progress cannot

  443
  be made in the matter until the county council have replied to the letters addressed to them as to the fulfilment on their part of the requirements of the Marine Works Act. As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 14th February last, the original proposal to include a steam ferry in the scheme had to be abandoned because necessary local assistance was not forthcoming. The present scheme includes the widening and lengthening of the existing boat slip, and the erection of a wall of shelter.

  British Railway Rates for Farm Produce-
  MR. MONTAGU: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has undertaken his promised inquiry into the grievances suffered by British traders and farmers at the hands of British railway companies; whether the inquiry is approaching completion; and whether he can yet make any announcement as to the remedial action he contemplates.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) Inquiries on this subject are in progress, but the Board of Trade cannot at present say when they will be completed or what action it may subsequently be desirable to take.

  Loss on Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state the entire financial loss under all heads in connection with land purchase in Ireland from 1st November, 1903, to the latest date for which figures are available, the amount of this directly connected with tenanted and with un-tenanted land, respectively, so far as ascertainable, and where not ascertainable, the respective proportional or estimated amounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As regards the first part of the Question I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given him on the 2nd ultimo by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury. † To the total there shown must be added the sum of £102,000 drawn from the Ireland Develop-
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 1041–2.
  444
  ment Grant to make good the deficiencies on the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund up to 31st March, 1906, as shown in another Answer of my hon. friend's of the same date to the hon. Member for Newry.‡In the opinion of the Estates Commissioners and the Irish Government it would be quite impracticable to apportion the losses as between tenanted and untenanted land.

  Meetings of the Irish Local Government Board.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how many meetings of the Local Government Board for Ireland took place for the year preceding the 1st instant; what were the dates of such meetings; and who were the members present at each.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Members of the Local Government Board met on eighty-seven days from 1st January till 1st June of this year. All the permanent members were present except those absent owing to sickness, holidays, or other official duties elsewhere.

  Mallaranny and Belmullet Railway.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed meeting has yet taken place between the engineer to the Board of Works and the engineer to the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland with regard to the cost of construction of the proposed line from Mallaranny to Belmullet; and, if so, what was the result of the meeting.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The meeting in question has taken place, and the Board of Works are about to furnish a Report to the Irish Government relative to the proposals made by the railway company's engineer.

  Untenanted Land on Colonel Brown Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. O'Grady and T. Ahern,
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 1043

  445
  tenants of uneconomic holdings on the estate of the representatives of Colonel Brown, at Mount Brown, or Dromard, near Croagh, in the county of Limerick, want to get some of the untenanted land on the estate, which has been sold to the Estates Commissioners under the Land Act, 1903; and whether he will direct the Commissioners to inquire into their cases before these lands have been distributed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify, from the particulars given, the estate referred to in the Question. They inform me, however, that it is their practice, when distributing untenanted land, to give full consideration to all applications for a share of such land which they may receive from persons residing in the neighbourhood.

  Evicted Tenants -Application of Representative of late Lawrence M'Evoy
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been received by the Estates Commissioners from the representative of the late Lawrence M'Evoy, who was evicted from a holding on the Sheane estate at Johns-grove, near Rosenallis, Queen's County, in 1882; and, if so, can he say whether the claim will be recognised in the forthcoming Bill of the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Lawrence M'Evoy an application for reinstatement in a holding from which his father was evicted. This holding was sold to the tenant in occupation prior to the Act of 1903. The Commissioners will consider the application in connection with the allotment of any untenanted land which they may acquire.

  Sale of Salmon Fisheries in Scotland.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the situation of the salmon fishings sold by the Woods and Forests Department in Scotland, the extent of
  446
  such fishings, the price of each, and to whom sold.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)Particulars of the sales in question down to January, 1886, will be found in a Parliamentary Return, dated 31st May, 1886, House of Commons, No. 175. The particulars of subsequent sales cannot conveniently be given in the form of an Answer to a Question, but if the hon. Member will apply to the Commissioners of Woods they will be furnished to him.

  Construction Department, Ordnance and Dockyards Inspection Staff.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the construction department, the ordnance, and the dockyards each have their own staff for inspection; and whether, under these circumstances, there is a danger both of overlapping and of wasteful expenditure.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) There is no danger of overlapping and no wasteful expenditure.

  Metropolitan Police—one Day's rest in Seven.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the details of the £150,000 which he estimates would be the cost of giving the members of the Metropolitan Police Force one day's rest in every seven days.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I gave the figures yesterday in the form of a printed Answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green, and they were circulated with the Votes this morning.†

  Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD (Lincolnshire, Brigg): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay Papers showing the sentences passed upon and the periods of imprisonment undergone by all persons who have received compensation in respect of such sentences and imprisonment in the last twenty years.
  †See page 295.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone) The particulars which I yesterday under

  Sentence.

  Time served.

  Compensation given.

  1

  }

  Life

  9 years

  £800 each

  2

  3

  10 years penal servitude

  6 months

  £6

  4

  }

  12 months

  }

  3 months

  £ 16 each

  5

  6 months

  £10

  6

  5 years penal servitude, and 7 years police supervision

  3 months

  £10

  7

  20s. or 14 days

  14 days

  £10

  8

  18 months -

  7 months

  £40 (£20 in 1899) (£20 in 1904

  9

  6 months

  2 months

  £30

  10

  }

  5 years penal servitude

  }

  2 months

  {

  £3

  11

  3 years penal servitude

  £2

  12

  12 months

  6 months

  £20

  13

  7 years penal servitude

  5 years 5 months (+time at large, on licence)

  £5,000

  14

  21 days

  3 days

  £1

  15

  2 months

  All

  £50

  Food Regulation Bill—Facilities for Passing.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the delay in proceeding with the Food Regulation Bill and the importance of that measure, if he will ask for Government time in order to facilitate its passage into law.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Bill is now awaiting Second Reading. I cannot at present say when this stage will be taken, but I shall, of course, be very glad if time can. be found for this purpose.
  took to give the hon. Member in the shape of a printed Answer are as follows:—

  Reclamation of Land at the Estuary of the Crouch
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the approaching completion of the repair of the sea-wall at North Fambridge by the unemployed, any steps are being or will be taken to continue their employment by extending the scheme of work, reclaiming further submerged land in the estuary of the Crouch and strengthening the sea-walls.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am informed that a sub-committee of the

  449
  Central (Unemployed) Body for London are about to consider the possibilities of a scheme for reclaiming a further area of land in the neighbourhood of Brandy Hole, Hockley, but that, unless the local residents are willing to assist, there is very little prospect of the work being taken in hand. I may add that I understand that, owing to a slip in the bank wall at Fambridge, further work there may have to be undertaken.

  Rejection Of Woolwich-Made Lyddite Shells.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to state the number of lyddite shells of Woolwich manufacture that have recently been rejected; whether there is reason to believe that a large quantity of these defective shells have found their way into both services; and whether he can now state how a Government arsenal came to use large quantities of defective material, although the prices charged for shells by the arsenal are considerably higher than those quoted by the trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of shells so rejected is 152. There is no reason to believe that any defective shells have found their way into the service. As I have already explained to my hon. friend some material used for the manufacture of lyddite shells developed flaws, which could only be found during manufacture or by cutting up the material.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    General Owen's Committee.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state the names of His Majesty's ships commanded at different times by the naval members of General Owen's Committee, and, the dates on which such commands began and ended.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): I am informed that the only naval member of the Committee who has held a command is Captain G. A. Ballard, who has commanded the following ships: —"Janus" (destroyer), as lieut. commander,
    450
    12th December, 1895, to 26th May, 1896; "Renard" (torpedo gunboat, Coast Guard duties), as lieut. commander, 27th May, 1896, to 19th January, 1898; "Euryalus," as captain, 15th January, 1906, to 14th May, 1906; "Royal Arthur," as captain, 15th May, 1906, to 8th July, 1906; "Terrible," as captain, 9th July, 1906, to present time.

    Sir Frederick Richards.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the Order in Council of 8th January, 1906, providing that an Admiral of the Fleet holding the office of First Sea Lord who has rendered exceptional and special service may have half or retired pay of took to give the hon. Member in the shape of a printed Answer are as follows £2,000 a year, whether the Board propose to confer this reward on Admiral of the Fleet Sir Frederick Richards, who served continuously at the Admiralty from 1892 to 1899, and who was First Sea Lord, when the Spencer programme was introduced in 1894, and at the time of the Fashoda crisis.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There can be no doubt about the exceptional services rendered by Sir Frederick Richards to the Navy and the nation; but I regret the use which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to make of his distinguished name on this occasion. The Order in Council is not retrospective.

    Navy Ammunition.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the allowance of ammunition for gun practice in the Nore division of the Home Fleet is the same as that allowed to the Channel, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Fleets.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the affirmative, as has already been stated by my hon. friend the Civil Lord, in reply to a previous Question from the hon. Member on Monday last.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Has there been any change of policy since the First Lord announced that the ships of the Home Fleet would be put on an allowance of thirteen-sixteenths of the ammunition issued to the ships on the Mediterranean and Atlantic stations?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should like notice of that Question.
    CAPTAIN HERVEY: Does this include the ammunition usually allotted for prize firing and ordinary target practice?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should think so, but I had better have notice.

    Messrs. Whitehead's Works.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, following on the change of Admiralty policy, by which three times as many orders for torpedoes have been given to Woolwich as compared with Messrs. Whitehead's works at Weymouth, over 30 per cent. of the men employed by Messrs. Whitehead have been discharged since the beginning of this year and more are to follow; and whether he can state why so large a proportion of orders have been allotted to Woolwich, whereas formerly the orders wore equally divided.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty have -no information as to any discharges from Messrs. Whitehead's works, either present or prospective. As regards the second part of the Question, it was considered that the existing situation justified the allocation to Woolwich of a larger proportion of orders than has been usual in previous years.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Then had the allocation nothing to do with the merits of the work 1 Seeing that the torpedoes manufactured by this firm are 1¼ knots faster on the 2,000 yards range than the Woolwich torpedoes, ought not the efficiency of the Service to be the first consideration?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:repeated the first part of his Answer.

    War Pensions.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many widows and orphans of soldiers who have died after lingering illnesses, as the result of wounds or disease contracted during the war in South Africa, and who are
    452
    ineligible for State pensions under the existing regulations, are in distressed circumstances: and whether, seeing that the funds of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation are insufficient to relieve these cases, he can make any provision whereby these persons may not be driven to seek the refuge of the workhouse.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): I am not aware that there are many widows in distressed circumstances on account of the inability of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to relieve them. The Army Regulations provide pensions for the widows and orphans of men who die, within two years, of wounds or disease contracted on active service. For the rest I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a Question put on the 13th June by my hon. friend the Member for North Salford.†
    MR. LONSDALE: But how about the men who died after two years? Cannot any provision be made for the widows and orphans in those cases?
    MR. HALDANE: I have said we only deal with cases in which death occurs before two years have passed.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is not State assistance given to widows and orphans of soldiers who died of wounds or disease two years after the Crimean war?
    MR. HALDANEasked for notice of the Question.
    MR. FLAVIN: How many of these soldiers are in Irish workhouses?
    MR. HALDANE: I cannot say.
    MR. FLAVIN: Thousands of them are on our rates.
    MR. BYLESasked if the Patriotic Commissioners had not funds stored away in the bank which would provide for these cases.
    MR. HALDANE: I have no control over that body.
    † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1594.
    MR. BYLES: Has any member of the Government control?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. LONSDALE: Having regard to the generous treatment accorded to the Boers, will not the right hon. Gentleman induce the Treasury to find the £50,000 required to keep from the workhouse the widows and children of those who gave their lives to keep the British flag waving in the Transvaal?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Heath Camp, Queen's County.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Mountmellick District Council in reference to damage to the public roads leading to the Heath Camp, Queen's County; whether he is aware that an application was made to the War Office in 1906 for the cost of repairing the damage done in that year; will he state what was the amount claimed, and whether it was certified by the county surveyor and the military authorities at the Curragh; and, if so, can he say what are the grounds on which payment is delayed.
    MR. HAL DANE: No copy of a resolution has been received from this council, but some letters from them and the county council have been received on the question of compensation for damage to roads; the claim amounted to £121. The War Office has carefully considered the case and can admit no liability for damage. It is, however, a matter for further consideration whether a contribution can be granted as an act of grace.

    Soldiers' Punishment Drill.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers are still subjected to shot drill in any military prisons or detention barracks either at home or abroad; and if so, considering the consensus of medical opinion that exists as to the injury this form of punishment does to the physique of the soldier, whether he will abolish it forthwith.
    MR. HALDANE: Shot drill is no longer carried out in military prisons or
    454
    detention barracks cither at Home or abroad, although the consensus of medical opinion is not against this form of punishment, provided that it is under proper supervision. In fact, its abolition was not based on medical advice, but on the substitution of drill, gymnastics, musketry, etc., for "hard labour."

    Army Service Extensions.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the employments in civil life the holding of which is held to prevent a member of the first-class Army Reserve from being permitted to extend his service in the Reserve to complete twenty-one years of Army service.
    MR. HALDANE: It is not clear from the Question what information the hon. Member desires to obtain. If, however, he is alluding to re-engagements in Section I), he will find in paragraph 18 of the Army Reserve Regulations, a list of the classes of men who are permitted to re-engage therein for a second or further term of service up to the age of fifty. No one, however, is permitted to extend his service in the Reserve to complete twenty-one years Army service, Reserve service not counting as Array service.

    India and Sugar Bounties.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any representations against the imposition of sugar bounties and the formation of cartels have been received from chambers of commerce in India; and, if so, from what chambers.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): Representations in favour of the continuance of the Brussels Sugar Convention have been made by the Madras, Karachi, and Punjab Chambers.

    Colonial Conference—Preferential Trade.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Papers on preferential trade were laid before the Conference by the Colonial premiers; and, if so, why those Papers

    455
    have not been included in the volume of Papers [Cd. 3524] just issued.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): No Papers relative to preferential trade were laid before the Conference other than those included in Cd. 3524.

    Colonial Export Statistics.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the figures used by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Colonial Conference respecting the exports from the Colonies to the United Kingdom were taken from a Paper laid before the Conference; and, if so, why this Paper has not been included in the volume of papers [Cd. 3524J just issued.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The figures referred to were not taken from a Paper laid before the Conference, but my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires me to say that he will be very glad to place them at the disposal of the House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper.

    British Indian Grievances in Natal.
    DR. RUTH ER F 0R D: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the cases of E. M. Hafeejee, M. H. Vowda, Ismail Suleman, Amod Heffeejee, and A. E. Patel, five British Indian residents of long standing in Natal, whoso recent applications to have their names placed upon the town roll of the Estcourt Local Board have been refused, despite the fact that they possessed the necessary property qualification; and whether, in view of the fact that the Municipal Corporations Bill of Natal has not yet received the sanction of His Majesty's Government, he is acquainted with any law in that Colony which empowers magistrates or other officers to deny British Indians possessed of the necessary property qualification the right to be so enrolled.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a newspaper report of the cases referred to. I understand that the Indians are appealing to the Supreme Court against the magistrates' interpretation of the law.

    Great Britain, France, and Spain.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give any information respecting the terms and scope of the agreement concluded between Great Britain, Franco, and Spain.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dews-bury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The notes exchanged with the Spanish Ambassador, and which contain the terms of the agreement between Great Britain and Spain, will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

    British Trade in Bagdad.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the general character and extent of the preference enjoyed by German over British traders in Bagdad by reason of freights; and whether any steps are being taken to remove the disabilities under which British traders labour.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The extension of the Hamburg-American line to the Persian Gulf has brought down the rate of freights to Europe during the past year, but my right hon. friend is not aware of any preference against British traders. If the hon. Member will give some further particulars as to what preference is referred to, inquiries will be made regarding it.

    State Pensions and Income-tax.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the purposes of the income-tax in the current year, the pensions of civil servants and of naval and military officers are being treated as earned or as unearned income.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: No distinction will or can be made between "earned' and" unearned" incomes fur the purposes of the income-tax until the Finance Bill now before Parliament has become law.

    Public Trustee Act.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I bog to.ask Mr. Attorney-General when the rules of the Trustee Act, which will come into operation 1st January, 1908, will be laid,
    *The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): I am informed that the rules have been drafted and are under consideration, but I cannot say when they are likely to be ready to be laid on the Table.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will an estimate of the cost of administering this Act be submitted to the House this session?
    *SIR JOHN WALTON: I should like notice of that Question.

    London Police Commission.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say when the Police Commission is likely to make its Report.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The Royal Commission informed me a few days ago that they do not expect that it will be necessary for them to hold more than a few further meetings for the taking of evidence. I hope that they will be able to present their Report shortly.

    "Drum" Publichouse, Southall.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been drawn to the grant of a new licence to the "Drum" publichouse, Southall, Middlesex, in face of opposition from the district council of the area affected, and from local residents and property owners, who protested both by giving evidence in the licensing court and by resolution at public meetings, and by a numerously signed petition against the grant of the licence; and whether he will take steps in connection with the Licensing Bill to provide machinery to prevent publichouses being dumped down in localities contrary to the declared wishes of the inhabitants concerned.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has not been drawn to this case, but I will make inquiry into it.

    Manufacture of Explosives-
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
    458
    ment, in view of the fact that Kynoch' Limited, at the recent trials contended in opposition to the evidence of Sir Frederick Nathan, that the addition of mercuric chloride to explosives renders them more stable, whether the firm at any time prior to the action of the Home Office in seizing explosives in England and Ireland which contained this illegal ingredient made any representations with a view to getting the specifications of the explosives amended; and whether he is aware that the regulations of the American Army Ordnance Department expressly prohibit the introduction of mercuric chloride or any other substances which may in any way mask the heat test.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Messrs. Kynoch have never at any time applied to the Home Office for an Amendment of the definition of any of their explosives so as to allow of mercuric chloride being added as an ingredient. I believe it is the case that the United States Army Ordnance Department expressly prohibit the use of mercuric chloride or any other masking agent in explosives supplied to them.
    MR. MOONEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence of Sir Frederick Nathan?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I have not.

    Hammersmith Workhouse-
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the amount expended by the Hammersmith guardians at the opening ceremony of their now workhouse it Wormwood Scrubbs; whether this amount was charged in the capital expenditure on the buildings; whether the architect, the clerk of the works, and the engineer each drew percentage on this amount, and, if so, what was the amount so paid to them, and were these amounts passed by the auditors of the Local Government Board.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The clerk. to the guardians informs me that no sum was expended by the guardians themselves in this matter, that whatever expenditure was incurred was met by the contractor, and that no particulars have been furnished

    459
    to the guardians of any expenditure which has been charged against them in the contractor's accounts, as all payments were made upon the architect's certificates for total sums. He adds that everything included in the architect's certificates has been charged to capital. I learn from the inspectors who held the recent inquiry that the expenses of the opening ceremony have not been divided from those connected with the laying of the foundation stone, and that the do-tailed quantity accounts contain items for these purposes amounting to £826 3s. 3d. The architect's commission is 4 percent. on the sums certified by him, but it has not yet all been paid. The clerk of the works is paid by salary, and there was no engineer concerned. The sum above mentioned includes a commission of 10 per cent. to the builders on most of the items. There are also percentages payable to the quantity surveyor, but some of these are in dispute. I do not understand that percentages to the quantity surveyor are included in the sum above mentioned. So far as I am aware, no amount payable as commission on the expenses of the opening ceremony has been passed by the auditor. I understand that the matter has not yet come before him.
    MR. LEA: Am I to understand that the expenses of this luncheon did fall, directly or indirectly, on the ratepayers?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Ultimately, the £826 3s. 3d. was intended to fall upon the ratepayers.
    MR. LEA: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was present on the occasion?
    *THE SPEAKER:Order, order! The hon. Member is now proposing to ask part of the Question which he knows perfectly well was struck out by my direction.

    Wheat Prices
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the price per quarter of Manitoba! No. 1 wheat at Liverpool and Hamburg on 1st June last, and the price of British wheat and Prussian wheat on the same date in those markets.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): The price quoted for Manitoba No. 1 wheat at Liverpool on 1st June was 36s. per quarter. Liverpool is not a returning market under the Corn Returns Act, and there is consequently no quotation for British wheat at that place. We have no recorded quotations for either Manitoba No. 1 or for Prussian wheat at Hamburg on the date mentioned.

    The Wreck of the "Jebba."
    MR. MILDMAY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has come to any decision with regard to the awards for services rendered by fishermen and others at the wreck of the "Jebba."
    MR. KEARLEY: Yes, sir. The following awards have been granted:— To the ten coastguard employed, £16 2s. each. To the nineteen assistants continuously employed and to Henry Hurrell, £2 each. To the fourteen assistants employed from 6.30 a.m., £1 each. To T. Thornton and F. Hurrell an extra award of 10s. each, making a total of £2 10s. each. It is also proposed to recommend E. Purslow and R. Hayter, coastguards; I. Jarvis and J. Argeat, assistants; and Mr. W. S. Day, Customs officer, to His Majesty the King for the grant of the bronze medal for gallantry in saving life at sea. With the grant of this medal Jarvis and Argeat will also be given £3 each, making their total remuneration £5 each.

    School Rifle Corps—Hartlepool Accident.
    MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the accident which happened at a school rifle corps drill in Hartlepool, and by reason of which a teacher was shot through the knee; and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of loaded rifles on school premises in future.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): My attention has not been called to the incident referred to. Without doubt it took place out of school hours, and in that case it is not a matter in which the Board of Education have power to intervene.
    MR. FENWICK: But did it not take place on school premises?
    MR. McKENNA: I will inquire as to that.
    *MR. BYLES: Could not the Government prohibit the use of ammunition by children?
    MR. REES: Does not this deplorable occurrence rather show the absolute necessity of teaching people how to handle a rifle?
    MR. LEA: Is not this the second accident of the kind lately? Did not the son of the hon. Member for North Camber-well nearly lose his life through a similar accident arising from this tomfoolery?
    MR. McKENNAwas understood to say he had no information on that point.
    MR. CROOKS: Is it not fortunate that the shooting was bad? He might have been shot through the head otherwise.

    Land Purchase Act Rules.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if new rules have been prepared for the working of the Purchase Acts by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will they be laid upon the Table before the prorogation of Parliament.
    THé CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): New rules are in course of preparation as provisional rules, and as soon as they have been made final they will be laid before Parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903 (sec. 23 (13) and (14)).
    MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole policy of the Estates Commissioners, more especially with reference to estates in the west of Ireland.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid that was travelling very far from the Question on the Paper.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But, Sir, I understand that these rules embody the whole policy of the Government?
    *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to know if any opportunity will be given for discussing them he must put down a Question to that effect.

    Tyrrellspass Evicted Tenant.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will advise the Land Commissioners for Ireland to reconsider the case of Joseph Geoghegan, of Tyrrellspass, an evicted tenant whose reinstatement has been refused on the grounds that his eviction did not take place within twenty-five years before the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1903, although the said tenant was not evicted for the non-payment of rent but only because the landord wanted the land, and subsequently had the house levelled; and if, now that the same lands are in the hands of the Estates Commissioners for distribution, he will advise them to give the preference to the said Joseph Geoghegan as against other evicted tenants brought from a distance.
    MR. BIRRELL: The lands in question have not yet come into the hands of the Estates Commissioners for distribution. If the Commissioners should acquire the, lands, they will consider the Question of assigning a portion to the evicted tenant mentioned in the Question.

    Lord Longford's Westmeath Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the losses charged against the Westmeath County Council on account of land purchase arises in connection with Lord Longford's estate in that county; is he aware that the Estates Commissioners have, as part of the sale of that estate, passed agreements obtained by rent-office pressure at prices based upon fictitious judicial rents invented to exclude inspection, and have advanced to the vendor price and bonus ascertained by this device, and that some of the purchasers are now more embarrassed than when they were tenants; and does he intend, on the statutory rearrangement of the

    463
    bonus next year, to relieve local authorities from liability for transactions of this character, of which they disapprove.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total deduction from county Westmeath in respect of arrears of annuities was £262. The total amount of annuities payable on 1st December last by the 263 purchasers of the estate of Lord Longford was. £6,086, and the whole of this amount has been paid except an arrear in one case of £1 9s. 3d. As regards the suggestion that prices advanced in the case of this estate wore based on fictitious judicial rents, the Estates Commissioners inform me that in several cases in which the judicial rents had been fixed since the Act of 1903 was passed, they had the holdings inspected before sanctioning the advances. I am not at present in a position to make any statement in answer to the concluding part of the Question.

    Irish Land Purchase and Scottish Practice-
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the practice of the Estates Commissioners in sanctioning sales without any immediate inspection at five years purchase more than would have been allowed under the Purchase Acts which required inspection, he will have the practice and experience of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland brought under the notice of the Commissioners and their inspectors, especially the facts that land is bought in Scotland with State aid at from seventeen and a half to twenty years purchase of what is ascertained at the time of sale to be a fair rent; that no bonus is paid with these prices; and that out of eighty-seven purchasers the annuities of eighty-two are in arrear.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have already made a note of the practice and experience of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland. The Commissioners' administration, however, is in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903, which, needless to say, does not apply to Scotland.

    The Drainage of the Barrow.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    464
    of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by Sir Francis McCabe, M.D., F.R.C.S., and Local Government Board inspector, to the effect that the result of the flooding over an estimated area of 3,400 square miles was most injurious to the public health of the country, developed constitutional diseases, pulmonary phthisis, bronchial and catarrhal affections, acute and chronic rheumatism, predisposed to lunacy, enteric and typhus fever, bog lameness and chronic rheumatism in cattle, and liver rot in sheep; whether he is aware that, during the twenty-two years since this evidence was given, nothing has been done to provide a remedy, and that the flooded area has enormously increased, causing more widespread destruction to the health and property of the people; and what steps will now be taken to provide a remedy.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before ~the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by William Neale, M.D., medical officer, Mountmellick dispensary district, who stated that houses were annually rendered unfit for habitation, that whole families had to leave in flood time and huddled together in most insanitary houses, public health was seriously injured, malaria and typhoid fever and diphtheria prevalent in consequence of the floods, no adequate sewerage for the town was possible, and the water supply was contaminated; and whether, seeing that the population of Mountmellick town is 2,400, he will say whether he proposes to take any stops to secure that the people shall not still be compelled to live in a hotbed of disease, with a contaminated water supply and no possibility of proper sewerage
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by J. M. Tabuteau, M.D., medical officer, Portar-lington dispensary district, who stated that fifty houses or more were continuously flooded with from three to five inches of water on the floors; that he had to attend the sick standing on a chair

    465
    by the bedside, with four inches of water on the floor; that there have been epidemics, principally scarlatina and typhoid, of a virulent type; that the water supply was polluted, and no proper system of drainage was possible until the floods were prevented; and whether, seeing that Dr. Tabuteau stated this year before Sir Alexander Binnie's Commission that the evils he then described still existed in a more aggravated and extensive form, he will say whether this town of 2,000 population is still compelled to use polluted water.
    I wish also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by M. Han-Ion, M. D., Portarlington, who stated that eighty years ago barges could come up the river to Portarlington, while a skirt' could not then come up; that public health was seriously injured, the results of the flooding being fevers, inflammation of the lungs, scarlatina, chest affections, asthma; that he had kept a register of diseases since 1843, and for the last twenty years diseases had greatly increased; whether he is aware that the condition described by Dr. Hanlon still exists; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his atten-has been called to the evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by M. J. Darby, M.D., medical officer, Monasterevin, who stated that in consequence of the flooding from the river Barrow public health was injured, illness increasing, especially lung disease, that there could be no proper sewerage, the water supply was polluted, that the floods and high water in the river drove back the sewerage into the houses, and that he had counted 158 houses flooded; whether he is aware that the condition of the town with close on 1,000 population is far worse at present; and whether any remedy will be provided.
    I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by Dr.
    466
    James Kilbride, medical officer, Athy dispensary district, who stated that part of his district ran seven miles towards Monasterevin, was subject to flooding by the Barrow, and that chronic rheumatism, diphtheria, and typhoid fever of a very virulent type were prevalent; that the water supply was contaminated, and no system of sewerage possible under present conditions; and to the evidence of Dr. O'Neill, medical officer, Athy Union Workhouse, that people were suffering from chronic rheumatism, chronic heart disease, chronic effusion of the chest, malaria fever, that he lived in the flooded end of the Barrow, and had seen seven cases of heart disease arising from rheumatism by malaria, caused by the action of the sun on the wet surface when the floods went down; whether he is aware that those conditions existing over twenty years ago have enormously increased, affecting a population of over 6,000 people; and what steps he proposes to take to provide a remedy.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will answer all these Questions together. I understand that the Barrow Drainage Commission of 1885 received evidence to the effect stated in the hon. Member for Leix, four Questions and in the two succeeding Questions of the hon. Member for South Kildare. I have already answered a number of similar Questions put by the hon. Member. I have fully explained to him that legislation is necessary before any large drainage schemes can be undertaken, and that no such legislation can be introduced until very full consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Arterial Drainage Commission whose Report has recently been received. The question of arterial drainage in Ireland is one of considerable magnitude, and I understand that the expenditure of some millions of public money would be necessary to give full effect to the recommendations of the Arterial Drainage Commission. It must be obvious that I cannot give any undertaking this session as to the introduction of legislation on the subject.
    MR. MEEHAN: May I ask is it not possible for the Government to deal with this great evil, which affects the lives and property of the people, by some temporary measure of partial drainage, such as in the ease of the river Bann?
    MR. BIRRELL: We are considering that, but really it is a difficult question.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar evidence has been given to half-a-dozen special Commissions and Committees and other bodies who have inquired into the subject any time for the past 100 years; whether any money has been spent on certain rivers I need not name in all that time; and, I desire further to know whether this Government will allow the matter to pass, as other Governments have done, and whether this state of things is to go on for over under a beneficent English Government?
    MR. BIRRELL: I trust not, but the Commission has indicated a great number of reforms to be carried out, all of which require very large advances of public money, and, as we have to consider that the money should be devoted to the best purposes, that must take some little time.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Alport Commission made all these recommendations before, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition in 1888 introduced three Bills that did not involve the expenditure of millions of pounds, and in the opinion of experts not oven of £100,000.
    *MR. SPEAKER: This series of Questions seems to be in the nature of an argument, rather than seeking for information.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: With all respect I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he is informed upon a certain point that affects this question very seriously. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been flooded, year by year, and nothing has been done.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am quite aware of that, and also that some suggestions have been made to the effect that the expenditure of something like £100,000 might procure good results, and that is the question that is at present under our consideration.
    MR. DELANYThe Barrow is the most urgent of all.
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not deny the urgency of this at all.
    MR. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the county councils of the district concerned have agreed to a temporary scheme of drainage, and that that scheme was approved of by Sir Alexander Binne.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Question is designed for the purpose of going further than seeking information.
    MR. MEEHAN: On a point of order, Mr. SPEAKER, may I point out that a portion of the Question No. 8 on the Paper was omitted, a portion quoting from evidence given twenty-two years ago, that "the poor died young in numerous cases, leaving their children, who have to be supported by the workhouses." I desire to ask the Chief Secretary is he aware of the fact that the matter so described twenty-two years ago is now in existence in a more aggravated form, and it is possible that the poor must still be permitted to die young, and leave their children as a burden to the ratepayers of the district?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot, of course, deny for a moment that the matter has again and again been reported upon, and that the evil consequences of the present position are of a most grievous character. All I can say is that any scheme which could be expected to do good would cost a great deal of money. That is what is being considered. I cannot promise this session to introduce legislation.

    Non-residential Grass Farms.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Land Commission are willing, with the concurrence of a purchaser under one of the Purchase Acts prior to 1903, to buy up his interest in a non-residential grass farm, subject to a balance of annuities, with a view to immediately selling the farm to the Estates Commissioners for distribution among neighbouring people in need of land; and will the Irish Executive facilitate this project, in order to satisfy the needs of those people and check the further depopulation of the country.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission have no power to purchase a holding which is subject to the payment of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts.

    Neptune Blood Estate, Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what is the cause of the delay in the sale of the Neptune Blood estate, county Clare.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that there has been no undue delay in this case. Since the hon. Member's former Question on the subject the Commissioners have had the estate inspected and have recently received their inspector's report. They intend to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the estate.

    Sir J Gore Booth's Ballymote Estate
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Jocelyn Gore Booth, whose Bally mote, County Sligo, estate, has recently been sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903, is now anxious to come to an arrangement with his town tenants of Ballymote for the purchase of their town holdings situate on the same estate; and whether the Estates Commissioners will be instructed to co-operate with the landlord and tenants and facilitate this sale in every way.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The holdings of the town tenants on this estate were not included in the sale which has already been completed. The Estates Commissioners are prepared to consider any application which may be made to them in connection with the suggested sale to town tenants.

    Queen's County Agriculture' Committee.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-land whether he is aware that one of the Local Government Board auditors, when auditing the accounts of the County Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Queen's County, in October last, surcharged three of the members with the sum of £3 7s. 10d., which amount the committee had unanimously ordered to
    470
    be paid for the necessary repairs and cleaning of promises which had been used for a course of lectures and demonstrations under the scheme of instruction adopted by the committee with the approval of the Department; whether the auditor made the surcharge under Section 51, Sub-section 7, of the Local Government Act, 1898; whether he is aware that the delay in furnishing the account arose through the illness and subsequent death of the person who gave the use of the promises to the committee; and whether, under those circumstances, he will remit the surcharge, so that members of the committee shall not be punished for discharging a debt incurred in the public interests.
    MR. BIRRELL: The statements contained in the Question are substantially correct, so far as they go. It is, however, also the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction declined to give their sanction to the payment referred to, and in the absence of this sanction the payment is illegal. The amount of the surcharge has been paid, and the Local Government Board have now no power to remit it.

    Mr. George Keogh's Geevagh Estate.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that eighty per cent. of the tenants on Mr. George Keogh's estate, situate in the parish of Geevagh, near Riverstown, in the county of Sligo, reside on uneconomic holdings of reclaimed mountain land; whether, owing to the fact of these rack-rented tenants being hopelessly in arrears, they were unable to take advantage of the rent-fixing clauses of the Act of 1881; whether this estate contains 500 acres of grazing land from which tenants were formerly evicted; whether he is aware that on the neighbouring estate, owned by Ughtred A. Knox, of Ballina, county Mayo, a similar set of conditions exists; and whether, under these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will be instructed to open negotiations with the view of purchasing these estates from the owners.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of either of the estates mentioned in the Question have been

    471
    instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. The Commissioners will doubtless consider any representations in the matter which may be made to them. So far, they have received none.

    Cattle Maiming at Lecarrow.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Lecarrow, county Roscommon, on Wednesday last, upon the hearing of a charge against sixteen men of ill-treating cattle and sheep the property of two graziers, the Court consisting of two magistrates, one a resident magistrate and the other a local justice, was divided on the question of registering a conviction, and the local justice who refused to convict was cheered by the crowd which had assembled; and what action he intends to take to ensure the due punishment of the offenders in this case.
    MR. BIRRELL: The charge in this case was for unlawful assembly. It is the fact that the two magistrates who composed the Court on the 12th instant were divided in opinion as to whether accused should be sent for trial. The case was adjourned till the next petty sessions, and it is therefore still sub judice.

    Carrick-on-Shannon District Council Chairman.
    Mr. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Carrick-on-Shannon No. 2 District Council have elected as their chairman Mr. J. J. Doyle, who is at present in Sligo Prison on a charge of intimidation; and whether he will be permitted in virtue of his office to sit as a magistrate at petty sessions.
    MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the rural district council named have elected Mr. Doyle to be their chairman. Mr. Doyle is at present in prison in default of finding sureties for good behaviour. If he accepts office as chairman of the district, council he will, under the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, be a justice of the peace during the term of and by virtue of his office.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to lay the
    472
    facts before the Lord Chancellor that this Gentleman has been imprisoned for intimidation?
    MR. BIRRELL: That is not so; he is in prison because he does not find sureties for good behaviour.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the charge against Mr. Doyle was one of unlawful assembly, and is it right that a man so charged should act as a justice of the peace?
    MR. BIRRELL: No doubt the Lord Chancellor will do his duty in the matter, but I must point out that Mr. Doyle holds office ex-officio.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the facts before the Lord Chancellor?
    MR. BIRRELL: I see no occasion to do so.

    Defence of Grazing Lands.
    MR. LONSDALE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether owners and tenants of grazing lands in Ireland will be permitted to organise and offer armed resistance to lawless mobs endeavouring to drive off their cattle.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the same Question when put by the hon. Member for North Armagh on Monday last.†
    MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the police are deterred from doing their duty by the belief that in doing so they will receive no sympathy from the Executive?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I know exactly to the contrary.

    Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland).
    MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and,
    † See page 126

    473
    if so, whether, in view of the fact that the House was informed that the Report was expected to be in the hands of Members as early as the month of April, he can see to its immediate publication and circulation.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already explained, in answer to Questions, that the delay in presenting the Report in question has been due to the fact that a minority Report was also to be submitted. Both Reports have now been laid on the Table. They are already in type, and I understand that the Stationery Office will circulate copies as soon as possible.

    Irish Evicted Tenants Return.
    MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Blue-book, Cd. 6935 (1893), set out the names and particulars of every evicted tenant then in Ireland, the Government will grant a Return in continuation of the above showing which of them and how many of them have since been reinstated, and which of them are now to be reinstated.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Parliamentary Blue-book referred to gives the names of the evicted tenants on the seventeen Plan-of-Campaign estates, but the hon. Member will find that it does not give the names of the 2,755 tenants then reported to have been evicted from other estates in Ireland. The Estates Commissioners' Report on evicted tenants, which was recently laid on the Table, shows the present position of the Plan-of-Campaign estates referred to. It is not considered feasible or desirable to give a Return such as the hon. Member asks for.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: In view of the Bill that the Government are about to introduce, does the right hon. Gentleman not think this information would be most valuable to the House to enable it to judge of the merits of the measure?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think so.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: We do.

    Irish Fishery Eights-
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of a landlord selling his property with sporting rights, and where such rights include any fishery for which a body of fishermen have paid a rental for such fishery from time immemorial, the Commissioners having carriage of sale will grant the same right of purchase to the fishermen for those waters as they will to the farmers for the land.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that if any such fishery as is mentioned in the Question should become vested in the Land Commission, the Commissioners would be prepared to consider any applications from fishermen who may have paid rent for such fishery.

    Teachers in Irish Model Schools-
    MR. SLOAN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that teachers now appointed to model schools are obliged to work two hours every Saturday more than teachers in ordinary schools and only receive the same salary; and whether, in view of this fact, he will make representations to the Commissioners of National Education to grant model school teachers relief from this extra work on Saturdays, or pay them for the special services they render.
    MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his previous Question on this subject on 30th May.† The Commissioners of National Education inform mo that they are not prepared to make the change suggested in the Question.

    Roscommon Extra Police Rates.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Roscommon District Council, held on Saturday, 8th June, requesting their county council to place every possible obstacle in the way of any effort to place any portion of the extra police on the rates of the county; whether he is aware that the Roscommon County Council has
    † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 57

    475
    refused to pay the amount claimed for sending extra police to Elphin; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the Roscommon District Council have passed a resolution protesting against the charge for extra police. The statutory certificate which is necessary for the recovery of the charge has not yet been issued. The Government possesses full powers to recover the charge if it should become necessary to put them in force.

    Lahiff Estate, County Galway.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of the Lahiff estate at New Inn, county Galway; and, if so, will he see that the sale is not sanctioned unless the grazing lands upon the estate are included in the purchase.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of the estate referred to. The question of including the grazing lands in the purchase will be duly considered by the Commissioners.

    Bullaun Post Office Defaced.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on the morning of Sunday, the 9th instant, the letters E.R. on the post office at Bullaun were defaced and the letters U.I.L., indicating the United Irish League, were painted in green in their stead; and whether the police have any information with reference to the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police have received information that early on the morning of Sunday, the 9th instant, the sign-board of the post office mentioned was daubed with green paint, but it is not the case that the letters U.I.L. were painted on the board or any part of the post office. The paint was at once removed by the postmaster. The police have no knowledge of the offender.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is not the objection of the Unionist Member for Ulster to the fact that the paint was green and not orange?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Evicted Tenants—Cost of Reinstatement-
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the estimated cost of reinstating those evicted tenants whom it is proposed to restore to their holdings, or for whom it is proposed to supply new holdings.
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot make any statement on this subject to-day.

    Loughrea Cattle Driving.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether on Saturday, 8th instant, the farm of, John Kennedy, at Carrowcreerenagh, the farm of James Sammons, at Clooney Castle, and the farm of Pat Coomer, at Marble Hill, all near Loughrea, were raided by a crowd of men and the cattle driven off; whether this was done in the presence of the police; and whether any of the persons engaged in the proceedings have been arrested or been prosecuted.
    MR. BIRRELL: A prosecution has been directed in this case, and I must therefore decline to enter into the details of the offence.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But two cases are mentioned in the Question?
    MR. BIRRELL: The prosecution applies to both.

    Cattle Driving at Raruddy.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr; Persse's farm at Raruddy has been for the third time unlawfully entered upon and cleared of cattle; and whether the Government intend to take any more effectual steps to protect Mr. Persse's property than they have done in the past.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that Mr. Persse's farm at Raruddy has been entered for the third time, and that the cattle have been driven off. On the two previous occasions sheep which Mr. Persse had brought temporarily from another farm were driven off, but the cattle were not molested, and the local police therefore did not anticipate that; he cattle would be interfered with. The

    477
    police authorities have now made arrangements for constant patrolling in the locality. Proceedings are being instituted against five persons who have been identified in connection with the first of the offences.

    Service of Writs in Ireland.
    SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to two cases heard in the King's Bench Division last week in Dublin, in which the civil bill officers declared that they wore unable to serve any writs in their respective districts, owing to the fact that writs wore forcibly taken from them and that they had been subject to violence; whether his attention has been called to the orders made by Mr. Justice Johnson and Mr. Justice Wright allowing service to be effected by Totter; and whether, having had experience of the illtreatment received by postmen in the same district in the past, he will afford full police protection to these postmen upon whom the duty will devolve of delivering the letters containing those writs.
    MR. BIRRELL: The reply to each part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    Cost of Restoring Evicted Tenants-
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what moneys of the sum devoted to land purchase under the Act of 1903 have been applied or ear-marked for the restoration of evicted tenants up to 1st May, 1907.
    MR. BIRRELL: Up to 31st May last the total amount advanced under the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, was £98,950.

    Irish Default Prisoners.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many persons are at present confined to gaol in Ireland for refusing to find securities to be of good behaviour.
    MR. BIRRELL: One hundred and fourteen persons are at present confined in Irish prisons in default of finding sureties for their good behaviour. The Government
    478
    have no information as to the number of these cases in which the default arose from deliberate refusal to find sureties as distinguished from inability to do so.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: How many of these cases are connected with agrarian disorder?
    MR. BIRRELL: I must have notice of that.

    Connaught Prosecutions-
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons are at present returned for trial at the forthcoming assizes on the Connaught Circuit for offences arising out of the agrarian troubles.
    MR. BIRRELL: Sixty - one persons have been returned for trial at the forthcoming assizes on the Connaught Circuit for offences arising out of agrarian matters. The number of separate cases in which these sixty-one persons are concerned is six.

    MR. A M Sullivan's "Story of Ireland."
    MR. FLYNN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the resolution passed at the last meeting of the central council of Catholic school managers in Ireland regretting the refused f the Board of National Education to admit the "Story of Ireland," by A. M. Sullivan, as an historical reader for use in national schools; can he say on what grounds the Commissioners declined to sanction the use of this book; and whether the commissioners intend to the policy keeping Irish children ignorant of the history of their own country.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to. The Commissioners of National Education inform mo that after careful consideration of the book in question they decided that it would not be suitable for use in national schools. They deny that there is any foundation for the suggestion contained in the concluding part of the Question.
    MR. FLYNN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman personally aware that this

    479
    book is a well-informed and most impartial synopsis of Irish history, and is generally recognised as such?
    MR. BIRRELL: I believe the book is a very good one. But, unfortunately, I have nothing to do with deciding this matter.

    Sligo County Councillor's Vote.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have yet instituted proceedings against Mr. Cawley for illegally acting and voting as a county councillor on the Sligo County Council; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. BIREELL: The reply is in the negative. The Sligo County Council have full power to exclude Mr. Cawley from participation in their proceedings, and if they should fail to do so it is open to any ratepayer to take action in the matter.

    Croghan and Rooskey United Irish League.
    SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his.attention has been called to the proceedings of the Croghan and Rooskey (county Roscommon) branches of the United Irish League, which indicated persons who would meet with the displeasure of the League if they refused to obey their instructions; and whether, considering the disturbed state of the country, he will take immediate action to prevent the public circulation of such resolutions.
    MR. BIREELL: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on the 6th instant to a similar Question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, †

    Mayo County Council Chairmanship.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a memorial from certain members of the Mayo County Council, stating that on 11th June two chairmen were duly elected to preside over that
    † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 813.
    480
    county council for the ensuing year, and urging that the Local Government Board should hold that Mr. Mark Henry was duly elected; and whether he can state what decision has been arrived at by the Board and the grounds for that decision.
    MR. BIREELL: The Local Government Board have received a memorial to the effect stated in the Question. The Board have no power to decide the question raised in the memorial, and have so informed the memorialists.

    Poisoned Sporting Lands.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the offer of a £2 reward for the discovery of persons who laid poison all over Mr. McTernan's land at Lyonstown, with the effect that all his dogs, some cats, and ducks, were killed; whether the police have reported any reason for this outrage; and whether any persons have been arrested in connection therewith.
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member has been misinformed. No reward has been publicly offered in this case. Captain McTernan recently poisoned his lands which are used for sporting purposes, and gave the usual statutory notice of the fact. Certain domestic animals belonging to persons in the locality were poisoned on the lands, but none of them belonged to Captain McTernan. No outrage was committed, and consequently no arrests have been made.

    Kildysart Stack Fire.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Iceland whether any arrest has yet been made or any prosecution instituted against the person or persons who set fire to and destroyed a rick of hay at Kildysart, county Clare, on 1st May.
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Did not the culprit in this case—to use the words of MR. Justice Grantham— "escape by the, skin of his teeth"?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Muckland Farm, Ballimore Bridge, Dispute.
    MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, after the promised inquiry, he can now inform the House what was the nature of the amicable arrangement entered into between the owner and the local tenants of the Muckland farm, near Ballimore Bridge, which prevented arrests being made in connection with the cattle-driving incident on 1st May.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that Messrs. Hughes gave a promise in writing to surrender the farms in November next, provided that they should receive compensation when the estate should be sold, and that their sons should each be given a holding when the farms should be divided.

    Birr Sessions Police Arrangement.
    MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the petty sessions at Birr, on Friday, 14th June, when Mr. Shannon had to appeal to the county inspector for order and severely criticised the police arrangements; and whether he can state why the police force was not present in sufficient numbers to preserve public order during the hearing of a serious case.
    MR. BIRRELL: A force of 100 police was assembled at Birr to preserve order on the occasion referred to. Complete order was preserved in Court, but in the course of the proceedings Mr. Shannon, resident magistrate, complained of noise outside the Court. The noise proceeded from a crowd which was fifty yards from the Court-house. The police kept the crowd back from the immediate vicinity of the Court.

    Attacks on Irish Postmen.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to inform the House whether the police have yet succeeded in arresting, and whether any sentences have been passed upon, any persons connected with the following criminal cases to which his attention has already been drawn: the assault find robbery against
    482
    a postman at Ballinagree, near Macroom, in December; the firing into Mrs. Ryan's house at Craughwell on 8th February; the assault upon two rural postmen in the Ballinagleragh district on 19th February; the issue of a threatening notice to Mr. Burns, on Ryan's estate, county Galway, purporting to come from the Mullagh branch of the United Irish League, in March last; the destruction of property belonging to Mr. Raftery at Knockrow, Kilchreest, on 8th March; the firing into the house of Mr. Tierney, near Athenry, on 13th March; the firing into Colman's town house on 17th March; robbery committed against a postman at Inchigeela on 18th March; the firing at and wounding of Mr. O'Connor on 21st March; the attack with firearms upon the house of Mr. Boland, near Newmarket-on-Fergus, on 21st April; the moonlighting affray at Mr. Ford's house, near Brosna, on 24th April; the firing into the house of Patrick Burke at Oranmore on 27th April; the dispersal of Mr. Raftery's stock from Cuskeydally farm on 30th April; the unlawful wounding of Mr. John Murphy, of Rineen, in April; the moonlighting attack upon the houses of Messrs. Glyn, Egan, and Earkins, in Coorheen, on 9th May; the firing into the house of Thomas Duddy at Athenry on 15th May; and the destruction of property and the dispersal of stock belonging to Mr. Corboy, of Birr, in the same month.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid that no persons had been arrested in the cases referred to.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Have adequate attempts been made to secure arrests?
    MR. BIRRELL: Certainly.

    Case of John Dolan at Ballinasloe Court.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before a special Court held in Ballinasloe on the 21st May; can he state the reason why this Court was set up on the occasion; whether he is aware that John Dolan, of New Inn, was brought before that Court, and was it specially constituted to try his case; can he say by what authority, or under whose warrant, the sergeant in charge of the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at

    483
    New Inn, county Galway, arrested John Dolan of that place, and brought him eighteen miles to a special Court before the resident magistrate; was he acting under orders from Lord Ashtown or at his instigation; whether the alleged cause of arrest was Dolan's refusal to allow Lord Ashtown's workmen to interfere with his boundary fence; and whether Dolan offered violence or used intimidatory language towards anyone, and what was the result of the prosecution.
    MR. BIRRELL: On 21st May Thomas Dolan went with a hatchet to a farm in Lord Ashtown's occupation and proceeded to destroy a wire fence which was being erected by Lord Ashtown's workmen, saying that he would allow no one to make a fence there. A police sergeant who was present remonstrated with Dolan, and pointed out that if he had a grievance a legal remedy was open to him. Dolan, however, persisted in destroying the fence, and as a broach of the peace was imminent, the sergeant arrested him and took him before the resident magistrate at Ballinasloe (thirteen miles distant) in the usual course. No special Court was constituted. The sergeant acted under his general authority as a peace officer, and did not act under orders from Lord Ashtown, or at his instigation. Dolan used no actual violence beyond breaking down the fence. The resident magistrate discharged the accused, as he raised a question of title.
    MR. MOONEYasked if it was not a fact that the possession of this land was in dispute between Lord Ashtown and Mr. Dolan, and if the latter did not take the ordinary steps to assert his rights? Was not a special tribunal set up to deal with the case, and was it not the fact that before anything occurred on the day in question the police sergeant told Dolan that he had an order in his pocket to arrest him? If so, from whom did he get that order?
    MR. BIRRELLsaid the case was dismissed because the question of title was raised. He knew nothing as to the order for arrest.

    Irish Board of Works.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for
    484
    Ireland whether any appointments have been made to the offices of counsel for the Board of Works in Ireland, and for the Irish Valuation Department; and, if not, will he explain why.
    MR. BIRRELL: No appointment has been made of counsel to either of the Departments mentioned in the Question, nor is it intended that any permanent appointment should be made. For the future, as occasion requires the advice of counsel will be taken by each Department through their solicitor, and when it becomes necessary that either Department should be represented in Court, briefs will be sent to such counsel as may be selected, according to the varying circumstances of each case.

    Gortnahoctee Postman
    SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the police have yet ascertained how the assailants of the postman at Gortnahoctee on 19th March became aware that the letters of which they robbed him contained writs; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this robbery.
    MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The robbery in question took place on 18th March. Six letters were taken; three of them contained writs and the other three contained processes for rent. Copies of the processes had been posted up at Macroon Courthouse on 15th March. The letters containing the processes were posted on 16th March, and the next day being Sunday, the 18th was the first day on which they could be delivered. The postman's assailants had probably become aware that copies of the processes had been posted up at the Courthouse, and they may have inferred that the processes would be delivered by the next post, namely, on 18th March, the date of the offence. This is a possible explanation, but in the nature of the case the police can obtain no positive proof. No arrests have been made in connection with the robbery.

    Distribution of Non Residential Grass Lands.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he can see his way to suggesting to the Irish

    485
    Land Commission and Estates Commissioners any method whereby a non-residential grass farm for sale, subject to a balance of annuities under one of the Purchase Acts prior to 1903, may be made available for distribution under the Land Act of 1903 among neighbouring people in great need of land.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): No, Sir, the Land Commission have no legal power to purchase a holding which is subject to the payment of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts.

    Tullamore Low Wine Still.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if samples of the materials added to the low wines still at Tullamore were analysed at any time by the principal of the Government laboratory or his assistants; if so, when; whether prohibited materials were discovered therein; what purpose did the use of the prohibited materials serve, or what purpose wore they supposed to serve; was any penalty incurred through the use of such prohibited materials; and was any fine imposed on this account by the Board of Inland Revenue.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The distillers of Tullamore have, in common with some other distillers, been allowed as an indulgence to add a small quantity of phenyl-hydrazine sulphonate of calcium to the spirits in the low wine stills for the purpose of eliminating certain objectionable bye-products arising during the process of distillation. The material referred to and the spirits produced are examined from time to time at the Government laboratory. No prohibited materials have been discovered on such examination, nor any fine imposed in connection with the indulgence.

    Irish Potato Crop.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the attention of the Department has been called to the unpromising condition of the crops in Ireland, especially the potato, owing to the long continuance of wet ungenial weather; and what steps the Department is taking towards making more general
    486
    the use of the spraying process, more especially in the poorer parts of the country.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (MR. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): The Department are well aware of the present condition of the potato crop in Ireland and the influences of the wet and uncongenial weather on this crop. The steps taken towards the more general use of spraying are as follows:—1. One hundred and fifty thousand copies of a leaflet giving full instructions for the preparation and use of spraying mixtures are being distributed throughout the country. 2. A large placard to remind farmers of the necessity for spraying and giving details of the method has been posted at every police barracks. Copies of this placard have also been sent to the national schools. Altogether over 10,500 of these posters have been issued; 3. It having come to the knowledge of the Department that there are on the market in Ireland samples of useless and even harmful spraying mixtures, a special placard is being issued warning farmers against the use of such materials. All farmers may have a sample of sulphate of copper or washing soda reported on as to purity by the Department for a nominal sum. 4. The Instructors in Agriculture, one of whom is now attached to every county in Ireland, have been asked to give special attention to this subject during this season. 5. In the better off counties where horse tillage is common the Department are issuing loans for the purchase of horse spraying machines to persons selected by the county committees and who are prepared to spray their neighbours' potatoes at charges fixed by the county committee. 6. In many of the western districts the Department have for some time employed overseers, twenty-two in all, among whoso duties are the following:—(a) to repair spraying machines which are out of order; (b) to sell spraying machines at cost price, viz., 27s. 6d., to farmers the valuation of whose land is between £5 and, £10, and whoso house valuation does not exceed £3; to sell the same machines for 24s. to persons the valuation of whose land is under £5 and house under £3; (c) to sell to the same persons spraying materials at cost price; and (d) generally to give demonstrations in spraying as

    487
    well as instruction and advice on the subject to persons requiring such in their district so far as time will permit.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is there any use whatever in posting these notices at the police stations, seeing that the people never go near them?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not so sure as to that. It is the usual place for posting all official notices, but in this case they have also been sent to the national schools. We have done our best, and our instructors are at work in the country.

    Income-Tax Commissioners' Qualifications.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration the advisability of modifying the existing qualifications of Income-Tax Commissioners so that the income now necessary to qualify a Commissioner may be from other sources besides property.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): My hon. friend's suggestion will be considered.

    Sugar Convention.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, before deciding on their present course of action with regard to the Sugar Convention, His Majesty's Government received representations from any person or persons, trader or body of traders, with regard to the desirability of denouncing, modifying, or continuing the Convention; and, if so, will he lay such representations before the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN:Various representations on the subject have been received by different Departments from time to time. The question of laying Papers before the House will be carefully considered.

    Education Acts (Amendment) Bill.
    *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to afford facilities for the Third Reading of the Education
    488
    Acts (Amendment) Bill in order to secure, as far as practicable, the passing of the Bill in the course of the present session.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government share what I believe to be the desire of the hon. Baronet, and I will consider the question of facilities. I cannot say anything further at present.

    Irish Land Finance.
    MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now state whether he is in a position to fix the day promised for the discussion of the Irish Land Act finance.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I hope Friday, the 5th of July, but it is not possible to pledge myself at the moment.

    Evicted Tenants Bill.
    MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now state on what day it is intended to introduce the Evicted Tenants Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANProbably on Thursday next week.

    Indian Defence.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if it is proposed that General Owen's Committee shall proceed to India in order to advise upon the adaptation of Indian defences to the requirements of modern strategy.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The defences of the Indian ports are subject to the control of the Government of India, and General Owen's Committee has been dissolved.

    Grand Committees.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOURasked if the Government had decided to take any action with a view of having the proceedings in Grand Committees reported.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a matter in which, if we take any action at all, it ought to be taken with great deliberation and caution. Hitherto

    489
    the reporting of the Grand Committees has answered very well. It seems to me the reports in the newspapers are quite sufficient to inform Members of the House of what is proceeding. If we have a more elaborate report, or anything approaching the Hansard report—not necessarily verbatim, but a full report—I am very much afraid that the proceedings in Grand Committee will alter their character. At present they are conducted on an almost conversational scale; many members even making speeches without rising from their places The proceedings are on a different footing altogether from proceedings in this House. They are none the less effective, perhaps more effective, for the purpose of considering the details of Bills. Therefore we arc not disposed to take any steps now to extend the system of reporting.
    MR. WALTER LONGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that great inconvenience arose from the absence of any record of the statements made by the Minister in charge of a Bill during its progress through Committee.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he did not think it; would be in the general interests of the nation that the proceedings on the Scottish Committee yesterday should be made public.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know what the particular proceedings yesterday were to which the hon. Member refers, but I think the proceedings on the Scottish Committee generally, since it began, would be a lesson for the public. There may be occasions when some inconvenience is caused by what the right hon. Gentleman refers to, but I doubt if that occurs often, because the report which is furnished through the papers is usually well and carefully done, and may always be counted upon as including any important statement of that kind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman had said, I think justly, that if what goes on in the Scottish Committee were known it would be a lesson to the public; but how can it be known if the
    490
    I right hon. Gentleman refuses to give us that report which he says is unnecessary?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that it is necessary to give a lesson to the public. It would convey a lesson to the public, but that is not the purpose for which the Committee is sot up. The Committees have been appointed, not that members should air their eloquence, or that any effect should be created on the public mind by their proceedings, but that Bills may be carefully considered in the interests of good legislation.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask, leaving the public altogether out of account, as the right hon. Gentleman desires to do, whether it is not really of the greatest importance that the House, when it comes to consider and review the work of the Committee, should have some means of knowing what it is they are reviewing? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, not from the point of view of the public, but from the point of view of the labours of this House when on the Report Stage it has to survey the work of the Committee?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of it as if it were an entirely new thing, and that there had never been a Grand Committee before which was not reported. We have had the experience many years, and we find that the present degree of report is adequate for the real purposes for which the Committees are constituted. Therefore, until experience leads us to another conclusion, we think it is quite sufficient to continue the present practice.
    MR. WALTER LONGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had in mind that under the changes for which he had been responsible not only were Bills of great importance and of a very controversial character sent to these Committees, but also, for the first time in the history of Parliament, chairmen who were not officers of the House in the ordinary sense were charged with the very difficult and delicate duty of the use of the closure. Was not that a complete change, and was it not right that the closure, if its use were granted, should be exercised in the light of day?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the first place, it is not quite the fact that no important and controversial Bills have hitherto been dealt with in this way. Mr. Ritchie's Licensing Bill was dealt with by a Grand Committee, and with success. As to the closure, I think I have mentioned more than once that I myself was the first chairman of a Grand Committee who off his own bat, without any rule or regulation to justify him, applied the closure, and with great success. That was a good many years ago. It would, however, have been an irregular practice if it had been often done. We have regularised it by giving the chairman the power of closure, which is inherent in the position of chairman in those circumstances.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether for the last twenty years, during the existence of Grand Committees, there had been any expression of a desire on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentle men now in Opposition for the publication of the proceedings of Grand Committees.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never heard of it.
    *MR. MENZIESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that a report of the proceedings of the Scottish Committee, of the length of two columns a day, appeared in the Scottish newspapers.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Prime Minister cannot be responsible for what appears in the Scottish newspapers.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity, the Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle, Schoolroom, etc.) Charity, the Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity, and the Board of Education (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bills): Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills): Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Lough.
    Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): Mr. Bridgeman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): Mr. Salter.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road the third time."
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: We are now asked to read this Bill a third time, although it has really never been before the House. I think it ought to be realised that only nine of the thirty-eight clauses have been considered, and, as my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has said—and it is absolutely the truth—the Committee stage is to be held in the House of Lords. Under ordinary circumstances this would have been matter for very grave regret. If the Bill were of first-rate importance, it would be very detrimental to the prestige of the House of Commons that the decision of important points in it should be relegated to the other House, but I cannot pretend that much injury will be done in this case. Little of the original Bill is left except the introductory words; almost the entire substance of the Bill has vanished during the debates. What is left is so insignificant in character, and, if I may say so, so unworthy of the attention of Parliament, that I really think it is unfortunate in some respects that we have devoted ten days of Parliamentary time to its discussion. Most of that time might have been saved had we known at the beginning what we know now. There were three points in the Bill specially repugnant to Members on this side—the destruction of the Militia, the institution of the special contingent, and the interference with the Yeomanry. Mercifully, at the last moment the Militia has been allowed to live, and naturally our objections based on the score of its destruction have vanished.

493
As a consequence of their retention that portion of the special contingent which was to be composed of the substance of the Militia is never to be brought into existence. Our objection on that ground has also passed away. The injury which was to be inflicted on the Yeomanry, by an astute arrangement, has been relegated to a period three years hence. It is true that three years hence the Yeomanry are to be deprived of 2s. of their daily pay, but that is a remote contingency, and the changes and chances of this transitory life may so materially affect the.operation of this provision that I do not think we need concern ourselves very much about it. There is not very much left save certain administrative regulations with regard to the Volunteers. At the outset I bade my Volunteer friends possess their souls in patience, because I thought a good deal of what was proposed in reference to them might be regarded as brutum fulmen, and that before the Bill loft the House it would have vanished. That anticipation has been realised. The penalties have been whittled down to 6d.; ineeed I understand the minimum is to be nothing at all. The embodiment for six months, which undoubtedly caused some alarm among the Volunteers, has undergone the change which I foresaw, and those who do not want to be will not be embodied, and allowance will be made for anybody who is inconvenienced. By a wise concession, too, the statement has been withdrawn that those men who by reason of their present occupation would not be able to accept embodiment are to be excluded from the Volunteer Force, and these men will have the chance of getting that military training which will be useful if the time comes when they are wanted. Therefore I think the case stands that, as far as the main issues of the Bill go, we need not trouble our heads about them at all, and that with regard to the minor problems, they have been reduced to very small proportions indeed. So far as the Volunteers are concerned, we may say that their position, with one exception, is "as you were."
There is one exception which may alter what I say. We are to have County Associations. I do not know whether these County Associations are going to come into being, but I think it is extremly doubtful that they will. I
494
do not know whether they are to be merely experimental or whether they are to be established universally. Personally I attach very little importance to the matter, and I do not think the Associations will do much to alter the state of things which the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa reported upon. The Royal Commission reported that the Volunteers wore not fit to face foreign troops They did not report that the Volunteers wanted to be called by another name, or that they wanted to be placed under now masters, I am not sure that the state of things will be improved by calling them by another name and placing them under these County Associations. We may benefit by these proposals to some extent, but I do not think we have very great grounds for being sanguine in regard to this method of administering an army. An army ought to be administered in such a way that the members of it become and remain the members of a uniform body which is capable of concentration. An army which is to be a fighting army must be embodied under those conditions. The only precedents I can call to mind where a similar course was resorted to occurred at the time of our war with Franco in North America, and the same policy was also pursued in the Peninsular when Spain was engaged with the same enemy, and when the Provincial Juntas administered her divided Armies. Those are the only precedents I can recall, because no other country in the world, so far as I am aware, has come to the strange conclusion that it can facilitate the expansion and concentration of its army by dividing it for purposes of administration into eighty or ninety small sections, each of thorn acting independently of the others. But I do not attach much importance to this proposal, and, as I have said, it is not a matter of much consequence. If, however these County Associations ever come into existence at all their proceedings will be watched with sympathy and a certain amount of curiosity.
But there is a serious side to this Bill, although the whole substance of it as originally introduced has been so altered and withdrawn that we need not concern ourselves over it now. But the Bill is a part, was intended to be a part, and was brought in as a part, of a much wider scheme, and

495
I should like to see how far this measure fulfils the promise with which it was brought in. We were told that one of the great needs of the Army, and this was a more important question, was to have a reservoir of men upon which you can draw in time of war, and when this Bill was brought in we heard a good deal about this reservoir, but the day has gone by for that now, and I think no one seriously advances the contention that we are adding to the power of the Regular Army in time of war abroad by calling the Volunteers by another name. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken many times with great eloquence in the country of the great value and importance of patriotic and national feeling, which he said would induce the nation to spring to arms if the necessity arose. That is a very inspiring sentiment, but we have to consider what actually happens in time of war, and what the right hon. Gentleman speaks of has not happened and will never happen. We have to think of this country fighting the kind of war which it has fought before and which it may have to fight again, when the Regular Army will be in need of officers and men in the field. We are told that we may rely upon the patriotic feeling of the nation to supply that need. It is no disparagement of our people to say that they do not do what no other people in the world do. Officers and men do not come forward to undertake a duty that they have never undertaken to fulfil and are under no obligation to discharge. During the Crimean War, in which we fought for two and a half years, we were full of patriotism. We sang patriotic songs about the war and the people called their little children after its battles. Songs wore written about the battles and everything was done to show our patriotism, but when all was said and done we could not put 40,000 men in the field, and we never had 40,000 men in line in the Crimea. We were offering bounties of £10 to induce men to enlist in the Regular Army, but that was so notoriously and entirely insufficient that 15,000 foreigners were encamped close to London and drawing pay as British soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman says that all that has been changed by Lord Cardwell's system; but I say that that is not so, and the idea that it has is an hallucination. The fact is that those who are engaged to come out and go to war come out, but
496
those who are not engaged do not come. It may be that we have a larger number of men under engagement, but we have no reason to suppose that those who are not under engagement will join to fight in an unpopular war or to go to an unpopular place. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a great national war. If there ever was a democratic and national war—a war in which men were fighting on their own soil for their hearths and homes—it was the American Civil War of Secession, but in that case the Volunteers who went to the front before the Battle of Bull Run went back to their homes after that battle. I do not blame them, because they were under no obligation to stay at the front, although I believe some of their officers threatened to shoot them if they did not. The fact is in that case that the Volunteers at the end of their engagement went home in such large numbers to their wives and children that President Lincoln had to apply compulsion, and Congress had to pass a most stringent law to make them return to the front. We deceive ourselves if we think we can rely solely upon the patriotic feeling of the people in time of war. During the South African War it is true many Volunteers were anxious enough to go to the front, but there is no evidence that they could have been relied upon for service elsewhere. We cannot allow men to pick and choose in that manner. It is here that the value of the Militia comes in. The Militia went to Malta and St. Helena and other places during the war, and they went because they were under an obligation to go, and you cannot rely upon the men in this or any other country to go abroad unless they are under an engagement to do so. The vast majority of those who engage do their duty, but we must not rely, we cannot rely, upon this Territorial Force to provide that great power of expansion of the Army which on all hands it is admitted we ought to have.
Then we have the necessity for an increase of officers. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon that need, but this Bill does nothing to increase the number of officers. Last night we learned, or I at least learned, that even the small hope that we had in our breasts in regard to this subject were destined to disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War informed mo last night

497
in reply to an unstarred Question that so far from the Bill making the much. needed addition to the Regular officers of the Army by the creation of the new short-service battalions, the Regular staff of the existing depot, barracks are not only to take charge of the short-service battalions, but to undertake the training of the recruits for the line battalions as well. If that is so, we are not going to add by this Bill one single officer to the Regular Army, and we are simply calling old things by new names. I will not talk about the difficulties which arise in connection with the Militia officers, because I have done so before. I understand, however, that we are going to try to persuade a certain number of young men from the Universities to join. We probably shall persuade a few, but the point is that the men whom we persuade to undertake these positions will be dissuaded in consequence from going into the Regular Army, because you may take it that the man who is keen enough or interested enough to undertake this limited liability belongs to that class of men to whom we must look for our supply of officers for the Army. But whether we are sanguine or not, after eighteen months of making speeches, and after introducing a Bill, the fact remains that not a single officer has been introduced into the Army, and some 500 have been struck off the Army list.
We hoped and we were told that the Government were going to make provision for a striking force. No such provision has, however, in fact been made. It is a crying need to have a striking force to move rapidly before mobilisation, but we are not one whit nearer that force than we were when the Bill was introduced. As far as I can make out, the total addition to the striking force is only 1,000 men, and this is to a great extent an imaginary addition.
Now I want to say a word or two about the Expeditionary Force. Great play has been made with statements about an Expeditionary Force of 167,000 men, and I should like to analyse this and see how far this Bill provides for such a force. That force is an absolute myth. There is not anything in the least like it in existence. Two years ago I caused a Return to be prepared showing the numbers and possible distribution of the whole Army
498
in case a force had to be sent across the sea, and the result was so different from that which the right hon. Gentleman now asks the House to accept that I must ask what has happened since. The right hon. Gentleman has not added a man, a horse, or a corporal's guard to the Army, but on the contrary claims credit for a reduction—I will take his own figure—of 20,000 men. I give him credit for that reduction, though I believe the actual reduction will be much greater. How such a reduction can bring about a larger Expeditionary Force I cannot understand. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me that he has grappled with this subject and that he has issued certain Returns. Returns have been issued showing units and brigades and so on, and the simple-minded public are supposed to take them as representing good coin. But they are not good coin, and tens of thousands of the men included have no military existence. It all depends on imagination and the realisation of some untried hypotheses, upon experiments not yet made, and upon expectations that cannot in any circumstances be fulfilled for years to come. Credit is taken for tens of thousands of Militiamen and infantry when there is not a single Militiaman, Artilleryman, or Infantry soldier who is under any liability to serve abroad at all. Then credit is taken for a large number of trained civilians, but the civilians do not exist and are not trained. I confess that I am sceptical about this and a good many other things in this Bill, and I venture to tell the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that he need not be alarmed about these 167,000 men whom I agree with him in thinking we shall never want at the outbreak of war. The right hon. Gentleman and myself come to the same conclusion by different roads. We come to the conclusion that this force does not exist, and I do not think there is the slightest chance of its coming into existence.
But I will not talk any more about what we have been accomplishing, because nothing has been accomplished. But I should like to deal with what has been undone, and that is far more serious than anything which the right hon. Gentleman has done. In eighteen months absolutely nothing has been done to make the Army more fit

499
for war and a great deal to make it less fit. There has been a large reduction of artillery, and I have never been able to understand the puzzle how by reduction the artillery has been made more efficient. Of garrison gunners 3,400 have been wiped out. They are men of the highest proficiency whom common sense and experience would suggest it would be well to preserve until there is a force to replace them. Military opinion, so far as I know, is opposed to the creation of a large number of Volunteer batteries, and it is unfortunate that the change should be made at the expense of the Regular Artillery. I have done my best to get at the facts, and it appears to me that the Field Artillery has already been diminished by over 800 men. But what is much more important is that there is a positive pledge that 3,700 men of the Horse Artillery, with sixty officers, are to be wiped out of the Army. I hope that that will not be done, for it will be nothing less than calamitous. I wish for further information upon this matter. The position has been slightly ameliorated in regard to the infantry by the retention of the Militia, but by striking off nine battalions the right hon. Gentleman has deprived the Army of the Reserves those battalions are calculated to produce, and of a supply of short-service recruits. I was amazed when the right hon. Gentleman the other night spoke with scorn of the utilisation as Reservists of men recruited at eighteen and having served two years; for what are we now doing? We are relying for an enormous proportion of the Army Reserves upon men enlisted at seventeen and who are to serve six months. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to the reserve of Guards in South Africa? I will undertake to say that in the view of every officer who was in South Africa, the Guards retained their soldierly spirit in a way that was an example to every other battalion in South Africa. Who were these Guards Reservists? They were men 80 per cent. of whom were enlisted at the age of eighteen to serve two years with the colours and to pass to the Reserve at twenty-one. It is trifling with the House when statements of this kind are made on responsible authority. It is nothing less than a calamity that the right hon. Gentleman should have stopped a
500
most fortunate and successful experiment destined to create very large reserves for the Army.
The Volunteers are to remain, and are to be trained for fifteen days, or less, if they cannot give fifteen days. What is the military authority which justifies the right hon. Gentleman in saying that troops with that amount of training are capable of serving as units with the Regular Army in time of war? I recollect well the unanimous advice given to me by the highest military authorities as to the term of service. I proposed that the short-service troops should be enlisted for fifteen months. But, with one exception, every one of the distinguished officers whom I consulted declared that that was an impossible period, and that two years was the minimum period of training for men who were to go into action with Regular troops. What information has reached the War Office since 1905 to cause this volte-face? We have had a red herring trailed across the scent by references to the Swiss army; but enough has been said to show that all these references are beside the mark. There is no analogy between the Swiss conditions and our own.
But when I come to the new conditions created by the right hon. Gentleman the night before last, then I think what I have said is very relevant indeed. We are now asked to add 101 battalions to the Regular Army. These battalions are liable to go into action as units, under their own officers, and they will have had six months training only. When was it that this great change of opinion took place? If it be true that the officers who now advise the right hon. Gentleman were of opinion, in 1905, that two years was the minimum period that could be allowed for training, what has caused a change to be made in that view in 1907? When did the change take place and why has it become advisable now to trust boys enlisted at seventeen, with six months training, if, in 1905, it was impossible to trust boys of eighteen with less than two years training?
I do not want to detain the House longer, but there is one personal aspect of the question to which I should like

501
to allude. The Financial Secretary accused me last night of having attacked all that has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; but I can say, with a perfectly clear conscience, that nothing would have given me greater satisfaction than to be able to support him, if possible, in all he proposed. I have been fifteen years in this House, and never once has any one been able to accuse me of allowing Party considerations to influence my conduct in regard to the Army or Navy. I have always worked with one ideal in regard to the Army; I have always worked in the belief that there is only one solution, a solution that might require modification one way or the other in regard to details, but that practically there is only one satisfactory solution to be found of this problem. During two years of my life it was my privilege to take some responsible part in applying in practice the principle which I advocated, and it is too much to be asked to ignore those circumstances and to hail with satisfaction a policy which in every single particular involves a direct reversal of everything I have attempted to do, and a direct challenge of everything that I believe to be right. I approach this question in no factious spirit, because the very moment the right hon. Gentleman abandons his destructive policy, the very moment he indicates that he will accept any of the ideas to which I have referred, then I shall be the first to support him, and I should give him the most cordial support. What happened? I trust that this amount of justice will be done to me. I have supported what I can; but I cannot support a destructive policy which I believe to be detrimental to the welfare of the British Army. I have seen the havoc inflicted by war on a defeated nation in more than one part of the world; and it is because I have pictured the infliction of that penalty on my own country that I have sometimes spoken strongly, perhaps too strongly, though I trust not, on matters on which I feel strongly. My only ambition is that somehow we should produce an Army which, when engaged in battle, will win. I ask that the lessons of experience in this and other countries should be applied to our own case; and I have opposed the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman where I have
502
found it drafted regardless of this tremendous test of battle. But I hope and believe that one feature of the Bill will be outside the gloomy outlook which I have presented. By accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, the Secretary of State has taken an immense step in advance, and has laid the foundations of a real Territorial Army. I will not dilate on that subject now, but I am confident that the laying of these foundations will involve, as a matter of logical necessity, the creation of a building of a certain pattern and dimensions upon it. I know very well that when the military authorities find they have to rely in time of war on the Militia as now to be constituted they will find that they are resting on a broken reed, and their first duty will be to improve the Militia battalions and bring them up to war efficiency. Two years ago I was laughed at for proposing as part of the solution of this thorny question, the institution of a Territorial Army formed of short-service battalions taken from the Militia. I was told that they were "sham Regulars," unfit to be called soldiers, and that the Militia were being destroyed without anything being put in their place. But through good report and ill report I have maintained that that solution is the only possible one. I have said, all through the various speeches I have made on the subject, that force of circumstances must eventually bring you to that solution as the only possible one. What has happened now? We have now, with cordial agreement on both sides of the House, the institution of 101 battalions of short-service Territorial Infantry serving at home in time of peace and abroad in time of war; and that is entirely taken from the Militia, which is not to be destroyed but is to be recuperated, to live a long, and, I hope, a prosperous, life under the new conditions. I venture to make the prophecy that the good work which the right hon. Gentleman has done, and the happy departure which he has taken will compel him to arrive at a point when he will have to choose either the reduction of more battalions of the Regular Army or abandoning the linked battalion system. I believe that is the certain outcome of what has occurred to-day. I hope that when the time comes the right hon.

503
Gentleman will choose the latter alternative. I must not be taken as expressing the belief, at this stage, that this plan in itself will suffice to give us a real army; I do not believe it will; it will only start us in the right direction, and it will have to be followed by consequential stages. With regard to the Bill, personally I do not care how soon it goes out of this House. It seems to me like the famous curse of the Archbishop of Rheims—nobody will be a penny the worse for it, and I wish I could think that anyone would be a penny the better. As far as I can see, the Bill as it stands is a matter which principally concerns the Volunteer commanding officers. If it is agreeable to them, so much the better, and I sincerely trust that the effect of the Bill will be to assist them in doing the good work in which they are engaged. I myself have some doubts on that subject, though, as far as that goes, I am only too glad that they are to have the opportunity of carrying out what is desired; still, I must regret that the House has had to spend ten days in arriving at the decision which it has now reached.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was in the difficult position of having to reconcile his strong and well-known views with the favourable reception accorded the other night to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. That reception was a curious illustration of the position in which the House stood in regard to the whole matter. In Committee they had not had the advantage of the presence of those who filled the division lobbies whenever a division was taken. So much had that been the case that it was well known to all of them that many Members, after one division, on learning what they had voted for, expressed the deepest regret for the vote they had given, and some of them had carried their Parliamentary conscientiousness so far as to vote against the Government in a later division when the Government happened to be perfectly right. The House generally had not followed the details of the Bill with much care; and one
504
reason was that few of the subjects which they had been discussing were to be found in the Bill. One hon. and gallant Gentleman who had taken a great and a useful part in the proceedings in Committee had constantly been seen by friends hunting rapidly in the Bill for what he had heard described in the speeches, and it was difficult to persuade him that it was not there, for he attributed his inability to find what he sought to his own stupidity. In that way they had seen the Nucleus Regular battalions, the new Yeomanry or divisional cavalry, and the proposals with regard to the artillery all hunted for in the Bill, though it was obvious that they ware only in the speeches. But the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put on a high level the change which had been accomplished in the particular provision which had converted him from an opponent into one who acquiesced in the passing of the Bill. On the whole, he, too, was favourable to the proposed change, and he believed it to be a wise one, especially on the ground of sentiment and public acquiescence, rather than upon mere military grounds. The right hon. Gentleman had said that by the original proposals the Militia were extinguished, but that now the Militia were not destroyed. Was there, in fact, so much difference between the proposals? Personally, he only found fifteen battalions of the Militia in the change, and as regarded the great bulk of the 101 battalions that were supposed to be continued, they were not Militia, but the Nucleus Regular battalions as originally proposed. Every man in the Militia was to be enlisted as a Regular, and whether that was good or not was a doubtful matter. But the point was that they started afresh, and the experiment was to be made as in its original form. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in viewing the creation of those battalions as the triumph, the inevitable and necessary triumph, of the short-service system in another form, perhaps a more difficult, a more experimental form, than that in which it had been previously proposed, but still with the inevitable result of a short-service system. How far had been met the doubts which many of them had

505
expressed about the scheme as described in the speeches far more than in the actual provisions of the Bill? Those provisions were vague, they did not contain the proposals of the scheme, and, in fact, they were not necessary at all. The main ground of doubt—given the fact that the first line of the Regular Army was not affected at all by the provisions of the Bill—was whether the civil character of the Volunteer Force was affected or destroyed. We held the belief, which was shared by our fellow-subjects in the Colonies and elsewhere in the Empire, that in the Volunteer spirit we had a great national asset, and that Volunteer spirit could be only retained by the civilian character of the Volunteer Force being maintained. On the whole the Volunteers had not been understood by the War Office, and he did not know whether they would resist the attempt to place them more closely under the thumb of the Department, but he knew that none were more anxious than the Volunteers to accept the best advice and aid from it. The civil character of the Volunteers had been left in doubt; and another doubt had reference to financial control and cost. That was a two-fold question. There was the cost of any particular proposals with regard to the Territorial Army, a small matter, though of great importance. Then there was the larger question of the cost of the whole military service, including the Regular Army. Again, there were the arrangements for the Nucleus Regular battalions, and the very difficult point not cleared up as yet, because it was still in the experimental stage, of the divisional cavalry or the new Yeomanry, the new Regular short service cavalry, and the arrangement of the new field artillery, also in a nebulous condition. There were doubts expressed also as to the enormous size of the expeditionary force of 167,000 men, and as to the ability of the country to bear the cost, in addition to a predominant Fleet and an Indian Army, of a Regular expeditionary force on so large a scale, and also the Territorial Force behind. As regards the financial control, he differed from some of his hon. friends who had taken up the matter. He thought on that question they had been met; they had been met
506
as far as it was possible to meet them under the Bill. But the measure was so vague that all the House could do was to obtain a strong promise from the Government that the views of the Committee on Public Accounts and of the Treasury would not be allowed to go under in favour of the new War Office view which had been put before them. The promise to consider they had got as a result of the debates, and the Amendment which his right hon. friend had put into the Bill he thought satisfactory, though some of his hon. friends did not think so. Financial control and economy in finance were, of course, two separate things. But with regard to the civilian character of the Volunteers he confessed that many hon. Members continued to have the gravest doubts, and many distinguished Volunteers had sent in memoranda on the subject to the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman had received from a distinguished Volunteer officer, whose name he was not at liberty to mention—he was not a Member of that House—a document from which he would venture to quote these words—
"It is essential to the success of the Territorial Force as a national army that a strong and independent branch shall be established at the War Office—the head of this department to have equal status with the other members on the Army Council."
In the discussion at the Royal United Service Institution on the Swiss Army, to which allusion had been made in the debate—the Secretary of State being in the chair—the lecturer, Major Johnson, used these words—
"It would, I think, be inconceivable to the Swiss people that our proposed County Associations, which, as we understand, are to perform almost exactly the same duties as do the Swiss Cantonal councils in connection with the Territorial Army, could act smoothly under the orders of a central War Office composed entirely of professional soldiers, or that of all the innumerable rooms in our new War Office only six should be allotted to the representative of the Territorial Army. They would probably consider the creation of a special civil or military department in the War Office essential, as an intermediary between the military chiefs on the one hand, and the civilian county authorities on the other. Above all, it would puzzle them sorely to find a place in their system of a Territorial Army for our administrative generals of the Esher scheme."
These views were sound, and he thought would be received by Volunteers. But the House must take the proposals of

507
the Government scheme collectively on this subject, and it could not be wondered at that the Volunteers still felt a certain amount of alarm in regard to their future treatment in spite of the self-denying promise made by the Secretary of State. The present Director of the Auxiliary Forces in the War Office had no real power. He was unable to act in the manner in which he would act if he were his own master, and that he could only be if he were a member of the Army Council. It was essential that he should be a man who heartily believed in the Volunteers, and did not share the doubt or prejudice against them in a military sense, which was to be found in the minds of soldiers who had not been connected with them. In the memorandum which he had already quoted the distinguished and experienced colonel said that the future head must, like General Mackinnon—
"believe whole heartedly in the potentialities of the Territorial Army, while not forgetting the limitations involved by the civil occupation of its members."
That was the essential point. The Government began by offering Lord Portsmouth as the head of the Territorial Force organisation, but with all respect they declined to have him. The Secretary of State for War made a much more favourable offer of himself. With that offer he would have been quite satisfied as a temporary measure were it not for the consideration that the Secretary of State was the head of the Regular Army, that his advisers were Regular soldiers with the Regular bias on these questions, and, therefore, when there was any difference between Volunteer opinion and Regular opinion of the War Office type, his right hon. friend must be advised and must almost of necessity go in the Regular direction and not in the direction desired by the Volunteers. Representation by the right hon. Gentleman, though personally satisfactory, was not satisfactory from the point of view of the civil character of the Volunteers. This was a matter of great importance to the Territorial Forces, because there could be no doubt that it affected the question of military finance. The Regular soldier had learned to put up with the expenditure on the Fleet, but he grudged every penny which was spent on everything except the Regulars;
508
he regarded every penny spent on the Territorial Army as so much subtracted from the amount that might be spent on the Regular troops. What were called the penal clauses of the Bill were really almost the only effective portions of the measure. The other portions of the Bill referred to matters which could be treated outside of legislation. The whole of the Territorial Army now became a force which could be called out in aid of the civil power. That was a new departure in this country, and it was one which would not have been taken some years ago. It was unwise, and although he believed it was never intended to act up to it, it was one which not only damaged the recruiting but damaged the civil character of the Territorial Army. He saw no reason for its being put in the Bill. He did not believe that the Volunteers were likely to be embodied under the provisions of the Bill. It was only from the point of view of the recruiting of that Force, which was civil in its character, that he was dealing with the matter. Was the Bill worth its place as the principal measure of the second, or critical, session of a new Parliament? Was it worth while sacrificing the chance of their great Budget by putting forward this Bill unless the Government could show some reason for believing that there was anything in the provisions of the Bill which was in any degree necessary? What was there in the Bill which they could not have done without? That was a question which he had repeatedly put in the course of the debates. It had been suggested that the County Associations could never have been set up without the Bill. Even that he was disposed to deny, because there were many cases where Treasury memoranda had been issued as the basis of Votes of Parliament, and they had been held by Parliament to be sufficient authority for handing over public moneys to be dispensed through committees of commanding officers. The Secretary of State told the House the other day that he required the power under Part III. The really effective power in Part III. was contained in the first few lines, which were in the following terms—
"The power of enlisting men into the first class of the army reserve under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, shall extend to the enlistment of men who have not served in His Majesty's

509
regular forces, and men so enlisted who have not served in the regular forces are in this part of this Act referred to as special reservists."
That power had been exercised to a large extent already. The Post Office telegraphists and the railway men in the service of the London and North-Western Railway at Crewe who went to South Africa during the late war were enlisted nominally for a day in the Regular Army, but they never served even that single day. It was true that the process was a double one to save time. They were enlisted in the Regular Army, and then they were nominally passed into the reserve for twelve years, so that it was proposed to enact by the Bill what had long been the practice in the Army, and really he could not see the necessity for the Bill at all. The principle of the Bill had been explained as the division of the Army into two parts, the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. The bridges between the two systems were admitted to be very numerous. The distinction between the Regulars on one side and the Territorials on the other was very thin, and it would be difficult for any Member of the House of Commons who had voted for the Bill to explain what the distinction was. The newest examination of the subject by a competent outside authority was contained in a book by Colonel Maude entitled "War and the World's Life." Dealing with this Bill, the writer said—
"The War Office justifies the production of its scheme by absolute necessity. An Act of Parliament does not in itself possess creative power and can accomplish nothing unless the spirit of the people is behind it."
Colonel Maude thought that the Volunteers already had the spirit, and that—
"an Act of Parliament may destroy the very spirit which it was intended to evoke. Thus, in the present instance, the suggestion of a fine for breach of contract by leaving the Volunteers has created a storm of opposition, though as a fact probably ninty-nine percent. of the existing establishment have already voluntarily bound themselves by accepting the same liability to penalty.…The proposed legislation will give us fewer men than we already possess, and destroys the strongest guarantee for their presence when wanted which the existing arrangement gave us."
He confessed that his view of the Bill was unchanged by anything that had occurred in Committee. He feared that the reason for the Bill was the 167,000
510
men of the expeditionary force. A principle had been adopted which committed us to continue, and in fact extended a military system which was the most costly the world had ever devised, a system by which we would fetter ourselves in future. His hon. friends the Member for the Abercromby division, the Member for East Edinburgh, the Member for the Stroud division and the Member for Wiltshire had, on the whole, supported the Bill with reservations on all the leading points. He himself who had not been led to support the Bill found that he was in agreement with his hon. friends on almost everything, though he had been led irresistibly to the opposite conclusion. His hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby division had worked and he believed they would still work together against the cost involved in the linked battalion system which forced the country to maintain an enormous and unnecessary Army at home in time of peace virtually on a war footing. That force maintained at home in time of peace was the ground given by the Secretary of State for the size of the expeditionary force. The right hon. Gentleman said he had acted on no principle in fixing it at that size; he said that he took the units ready to his hand, and yet the only way of making that substantial reduction on the cost of the Army which had been promised by three successive Governments and two successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of the late Government, and reinforced by the present Government, was by the abolition of the linked battalion system. Any strikings-off which his right hon. friend might show were temporary and illusory so long as that millstone hung round our neck. The linked-battalion system not only remained, but was intensified under the new scheme. The late Prime Minister explained that he could not conceive the circumstances for which a force of 167,000 men would at once be required. An attempt was made from time to time to cover up all these difficulties by alleging that home defence was the basis of the new Territorial Army. He saw his right hon. friend smile, but they all knew that that defence was a hollow defence. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the view of the Blue Water School, and the view of the late Prime

511
Minister expressed in a Memorandum that the—
"Navy was capable of defending those shore s from invasion."
The right hon. Gentleman had accepted the principle which he described as that "of the late Government, the principle of the Navy, and the principle of the War Office," that the Volunteers were required for garrisons and to repel possible raids, which were "very unlikely," but chiefly for the expansion of the expeditionary force for service across the seas. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division had often recommended to the House the Militia system as the real basis of the Army of the future. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the case of infantry at least, although he held strong views as regarded the cavalry and a portion of the artillery. This subject was discussed very fully at the Colonial Conference. There Sir Joseph Ward said—
"The popular basis of a Volunteer system…we encourage it in every possible way…We could get thousands of them ('to fight over sea'), and if we were to attempt to create a first line or company, whatever is suggested, to be always ready for over-sea defence, I think you would create internal difficulties amongst the ordinary forces, who would willingly and spontaneously go out and fight when the time arises. I believe that it is far better to let the country realise that we can draw upon our Volunteers for wherever we are going to fight, not earmarking them beforehand. Our people do not want to have paraded a permanent organisation to go outside the country to fight. I do sincerely hope that Mr. Haldane will not expect us to go upon lines of that kind."
These views were extremely well supported immediately by Sir Frederick Borden, the Canadian Minister of Militia, who said that he had hoped that this question had been finally "disposed of five years ago." The Secretary of State replied—
"I am at the moment keenly conscious of the difficulty…because I have just had to face it…at home."
His main objection to the Bill was that the division of the Army into two lines was an arbitrary division; that the regular line was based on principles of enormous costliness, which were not effective, and would never be able to secure the permanent reduction of expenditure. On the contrary when the right hon.
512
Gentleman came to the House with large estimates with only temporary and illusory reductions it would be said that they were committed to those lines; that they could not help themselves; and that they ought to have known that would be the cost. He contended that the scheme of the Territorial Army would do much to destroy the healthy voluntary spirit which they had to look to and depend upon for the future of the Volunteer force.
*MR. GWYNNsaid that the time had come when those sitting on the Irish Benches ought to explain the position they had taken and meant to take in regard to the Bill. On the Second Reading they voted for the Bill, in the Commit tie stages they abstained from voting at all, and on the Third Reading they proposed to vote against it. The issue on which they meant to vote against the Bill at its Third Reading did not lie before the House, but was vitally connected with it, and his object was to explain the attitude of Ireland towards the great instrument of Empire which they were attempting to renovate and remodel. On the Committee stage of the Bill they took no part in the discussions, though their objection to the Bill was definite before the Committee stage. That objection had nothing to do with detail. They did not wish to prevent the Government from improving the state of the Army, which both the great Parties had so much at heart. As he understood the Bill, it was to create a popular Territorial Force for home defence, and an appeal was to be made to the patriotism of the British people. As had been admirably explained by the Secretary for Foriegn Affairs, it was not only an appeal to Imperial patriotism but to local patriotism. But was that appeal going to be made to Ireland? Was it proposed to raise a Territorial Army in Ireland, organised in Ireland, to enable Irishmen to associate themselves for the defence of their own country and to drill and acquire the use of arms? No. What was regarded as a virtue in this country would still remain a crime in Ireland. He specially drew the attention of the House to that point. He fully recognised the assumption on which the Bill rested. It could only be passed by a Government

513
which trusted the people and whom the people trusted. But there was no such Government in Ireland. What became of the Union if different conditions so regulated the status of the people of Ireland and the status of the people of Great Britain? The Irish Party proposed to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill not so much for what it expressed but for what it implied. It stigmatised the position of Ireland as one of inferiority—as that of a conquered country held down by force of arms. When the Irish Party voted for the Second Reading they recognised that before they could have a popular Army they must have a popular Government. They believed that this Government was going to take a serious step towards establishing popular government in Ireland—that they were going to grant—he would not say what they had granted ii South Africa—but to take serious steps towards trusting the Irish people with the management of their own affairs—from which it would follow as a consequence that they would be able to establish in Ireland a Territorial Army and to satisfy the legitimate wish of the Irish people to organise themselves for the defence of their own country. Instead of that, the Irish people were offered a Bill which was a perfect monument of distrust. The hon. Member for South Belfast, speaking in Belfast, while proposing it on other grounds, said that as an Irishman he condemned the Bill because it showed complete distrust of the Irish people, and that if he were a Nationalist he would oppose it tooth and nail. The Irish Members had no other course than to vote against the Bill and now they were back where twenty years of resolute government had left them. What he invited the House to consider was what this meant to England and to the Empire. He understood that the permanent strength of the garrison in Ireland was 25,000. In time of war those 25,000 men could not be taken out of Ireland without sending into Ireland at least 25,000 English Volunteers. Men would have to be sent over to Ireland to defend the country which was not allowed to defend herself. The Bill cut off from the Empire that source in Ireland from which she might draw men for a Territorial Army. More
514
than that it affected the first line of Imperial defence. What were the men who were now drawn from Ireland for the Regulars and the Militia? They were men who were willing to take England's shilling to serve in an Army one purpose of which was to keep Ireland in subjection. While that was so, he told the House plainly that it would be the duty of himself and all who thought with him to do what they could to prevent Irishmen joining the British Army. That was a state of things that was surely not to the advantage of England or the Empire. The remedy was plain and ripe in the experience of the Government. He did not know that the record of this Government would be glorious in history, but one thing would redound to their credit, and that was what they had done in South Africa. He believed that the Government were now negotiating with General Both a for a Dutch Army; whether that was so or not it must ultimately be so, because the Dutch could not be given freedom without being given a right to arm. The Liberal Government were bound by the obligations of their own liberality. They were bound by the success of their own achievement not to recede from the standard they had set up in South Africa. They could if they pleased turn Ireland as they had turned South Africa into a place from which.they could draw strength for the Empire instead of a place to be held with a garrison. It might be said that all this was vain talk because there was no chance of a state of things arising in which England could trust Ireland, because Ireland was irretrievably and hopelessly hostile to this country. He stood there to deny such statements. He fully admitted that there was a time when all the men most respected in Ireland by Nationalists aimed at separation, and separation such as could only be secured by the ruin of England. There were men still living and honoured in Ireland who had been bound together in a military organisation—there were men sitting on the Nationalist Benches who were a part of that organisation—whose main object was to gain some day of vantage, some point of attack in which they could help in some great European upheaval to accomplish the ruin of England. Those days had gone by; the

515
men who had been, at the risk of their lives and liberty, banded together for that purpose were now standing in with the rest of Ireland in a common aspiration. The old fighting men of Ireland were with the rest of Irish Nationalists in coming to England and offering openly and fairly friendship on one condition, that condition being freedom for Ireland. He had touched bitter memories, but he hoped the House would recognise that the object of his remarks was to conciliate and not to estrange. He asked the Liberal Party if the Irish Nationalists were wrong to oppose a Bill which denied to Irishmen—and to Irishmen alone of all white nations in the Empire—the right to organise freely in defence of their own country; and he would ask the Imperialists if they were wrong to oppose a measure under which Ireland was to be left maimed and helpless, a captive and not a soldier, in a great scheme of Imperial defence.
*MR. MCCRAEsaid he had listened with interest to the speech of most momentous import which the hon. Member had just delivered, but it had failed to convince him that circumstances had so altered as to make hon. Gentlemen on those Benches take a course different from that which they took on the Second Heading of the Bill. He heard with regret that the Irish Party were going to vote against the Third Reading. As a friend of Ireland he regretted that, because the Irish Party in that House had always represented the policy of peace. They upheld that policy when it was not very popular, and to him it would be a painful thing to see the Irish Party and perhaps the Labour Party go into the Lobby with the avowed advocates of conscription against a Bill which worked effectively for the policy of peace. He could assure the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the Volunteers had no fear of the penal clauses of the Bill, and he could not endorse the right hon. Baronet's statement that Members on the Government side of the House were less favourable to the Bill than hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches. He could not agree with that statement. No doubt many hon. Gentlemen objected to certain parts of
516
the Bill, but not to the scheme as whole He believed that if the Government Whips were removed there would still be an overwhelming majority of Liberal Members supporting the Bill. He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Croydon with some amazement. It was a most extraordinary speech, and its arguments were confused and illogical. The right hon. Gentleman started by saying there was really nothing in the Bill; but if that was so, what had the right hon. Gentleman and his friends been doing for the last ten days, voting and speaking upon matters which he now said were of no importance?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Militia have been taken out of the Bill and the Bill totally changed.
*MR. MCCRAEsaid the changes that had been made were entirely in the right direction and did not alter at all the importance of the constructive portion of the measure. The change which put the Militia into the first line was a change in the right direction, but it did not alter the scheme of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then criticised something that was not in the Bill, but which was material to that part of the scheme of his right hon. friend which dealt with the first line and not with the Territorial Army. But while the right hon. Gentleman was saying in the House there was nothing in the Bill, he had been declaring in the public Press that of all that was good in the Bill, he, and he alone, was the absolute and sole patentee. He had read with interest an article in which the right hon. Gentleman had said that just as he was leaving office he left a scheme whereby £175,000 additional was to be spent on the Auxiliary Forces. What was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind he did not know, but he did know that the right hon. Gentleman in the House two years ago proposed that the expenditure should be reduced by £300,000, and that it was only by throwing the right hon. Gentleman over that the Government of the day saved itself from defeat. He knew what he had proposed before, and what the House rejected; but in all his criticisms there had not been mention of a practical scheme.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What was rejected?
*MR. McCRAE: What was suggested was his proposal to reduce the Volunteers to 180,000 men; secondly, the proposal for dividing the Army into two classes, which he never proceeded with.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That proposal was proceeded with, and carried into effect.
*MR. MCCRAE: The proposal for a short-service Army? Where was it now?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Abolished by the right hon. Gentleman.
*MR. MCCRAEwas afraid the short-service Army proposal was like the six Army Corps of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misinformed. The experiment was put into operation, the battalions wore raised on the terms proposed, and produced their reserve. They had been destroyed by the right hon. Gentleman.
*MR. McCRAEwould leave his right hon. friend to reply to that, but that was the first time fle had become aware that such an Army had been in existence, and he thought it would also be news to other people. The right hon. Gentleman had also made the extraordinary statement that he attached no importance to Volunteer training. That was a statement he failed to understand, because the right hon. Gentleman had over and over again said that the material of which the Volunteers was composed was the best we had, and all that was required was additional training. He quite agreed that a Territorial Army would never be made by an Act of Parliament, and that they must appeal to the sympathy and good will of the nation and the patriotic impulse of the young men of our race. All that could be done in a Bill of this kind was to provide a framework for the scheme. During the last Parliament he had endeavoured in every session to impress on the right hon. Gentleman opposite that more could be
518
done by administration than by legislation in perfecting our military forces. He still held that view, but they required a clear idea of what the men were to do and how they were to do it. That was what the scheme of his right hon. friend provided for. His right hon. friend had produced a scheme which, strengthened by the concessions so wisely made, still held the field, after passing through the fire of criticism. He had listened in vain for an alternative scheme from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. When the South African war broke out and the Volunteers were after considerable delay allowed to go to the front, they displayed qualities both of courage and endurance which fitted them to take their place with the soldiers of the Line. They did not have the advantage of six months training after embodiment and they did not have fifteen days annual training in camp. His own battalion had sent out many men who had had only eight days in camp, but who never had the opportunity of doing fifteen days prior to the outbreak of war. When they could rely on such ability as those men sh wed he thought there was something to be said for the discipline of the Volunteer Force as it at present existed. He had listened both to the right hon. Member for Croydon and to his right hon. friend, but he thought neither quite realised what a great factor making for military efficiency we had in the present Volunteer Force. If they would consider for a moment how the force had alternately been neglected and hustled by successive Governments and War Ministers, it was a wonder that they existed at all. When the right hon. Member for Croydon produced the medical circular it said a great deal for the Volunteers and their discipline that they submitted to what they believed to be an illegal demand upon them. They recognised that military discipline must be maintained, and in consequence they did what they were not compelled to do. He thought his right hon. friend ought to be pleased with the measure of success with which his scheme had met. He was still sceptical as to the value of County Associations. The Volunteers generally, if these County Associations became part of the scheme, would make

519
the best of them. He did not recognise their necessity, however, and he, for his part, pinned his faith to the Army Council and the powers they had to make regulations for the County Associations. He believed those regulations would be suited to the counties. He was glad the County Associations were to have nothing to do with command and training, and he hoped commanding officers of Volunteers would occupy the same position that they did at present. He thought his right hon. friend ought to take care that the position of the commanding officers was not in any way undermined, because if any attempt was made to put the commanding officer in leading strings or tie him up with red tape the type of man who now commanded the battalion would not be obtained. At the present time the commanding officer knew that if he worked hard for his corps it could attain to a high state of efficiency because he had a free hand, but if they interfered between the commanding officer and his men, there would be a lack of efficiency and of interest in the work. He did not believe that was the intention of his right hon. friend; but it was in the Bill, and the prescribed officer should become the proscribed officer before this Bill became an Act. He warned his right hon. friend that at the War Office there was a school of thought initiated by Lord Roberts which held that we ought to have a very small highly trained Volunteer force. He opposed that idea root and branch. He was greatly afraid that at the War Office at the present time there might be a feeling in that direction, as during the discussions on the Bill there had cropped up indications of an attempt to reduce the force. That that was entirely contrary to the idea of his right hon. friend he knew, because his scheme was based on a policy of expansion and a large Territorial Army. The House rejected the scheme of the right hon. Member for Croydon when he proposed to reduce the Volunteer Force from 245,000 to 180,000, and that was a policy which he thought the nation also had condemned, because a good deal was said about it at the time of the General Election. He therefore impressed on his right hon. friend that, when considering the part the County Associations were
520
to play and the duties that would fall upon them, he should see that no attempt was made by the military authorities to reduce the establishment of the Volunteers. He believed that the hope of economy in Army expenditure depended on the policy of having a small highly trained Regular Army with a large reserve behind it. He accepted the proposition of his right hon. friend that his scheme provided for more than an Army for home defence. It did so in a way that had never been done before, namely, by providing a Territorial Army self-contained with its brigades and divisions, and its own artillery, cavalry, and army service corps capable of reinforcing an Army in the field. It was a scheme immeasurably in advance of anything hitherto proposed. He regretted that the Labour Party should vote against the Third Reading of a Bill that was a safeguard against conscription. The most peaceably disposed man in the House must feel that under present conditions we must maintain the supremacy of our naval force and the command of the sea, and have an efficient military force as well. Having regard to that, he could only express regret that the Labour Party were going to vote against a measure which was the best weapon we could have against compulsory military training. He would quote from the military correspondent of The Times a few words which he thought were very appropriate, not only with regard to the Regular Army, but also in reference to the Volunteer Force. That correspondent in a recent letter said—
"What we need for the Regular Army is a fixed policy, stability of units, and effectives, and unchanging terms of service."
The Auxiliary Forces in the past had suffered a great deal from the chapping and changing to which they had been subjected owing to repeated attempts to impose what turned out to be impossible conditions. What they required was continuity of policy. He felt quite sure that he was speaking for the great body of the Volunteers of the country when he said that they welcomed the important and honourable place which the right hon. Gentleman had given them in his new scheme. For those reasons he had much pleasure

521
in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had listened with much attention, to the able speech of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for East Edinburgh. He regretted, however, that instead of directing so much attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon and his speeches and writings he had not devoted more attention to the benefits which the Bill was going to confer on the Auxiliary Forces. In the most careful consideration he had been able to give to the Bill since its introduction, and in the many consultations with which he had been favoured by the Secretary of State for War, he had failed to gather how it was going to be made a distinct benefit to the Volunteer Force. In dealing with any matter connected with that Force he had always been most anxious to remove it entirely from party feelings. The right hon. Member for Croydon and Lord Midleton would agree that in the last Parliament he had certainly shown a non-party spirit on the question. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would not think that in any action he had taken, or any observation he was about to make, he was actuated by the slightest party feeling or animosity, and that he would give him the credit of being devoid of any personal feeling towards himself, because there was no Member of the House for whom he entertained more sincere personal respect. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had been animated throughout by the very best intentions. Not one of his predecessors at the War Office had made such efforts to become personally acquainted by individual touch with the feelings of the Volunteers in those districts which he had visited. He had devoted many months to the study of these questions, and he had given up many of his Saturday evenings to distributing prizes. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to admit that in his association with the different commanding officers he had met, he had been quite unable to bring before them the details of his scheme. He could not have done so, because the Bill had not been laid before Parliament, and therefore that course would have been
522
irregular. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had said very truly that the Volunteers had suffered considerably in the past from the instability of the War Office in regard to them. They had nevertheless survived, and had attained their present position entirely owing to their own exertions and the determination of the officers and non-commissioned officers and men to endeavour to discharge their duty towards their country. No such Bill as that under discussion was required to bring about greater stability or to carry out the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission, which consisted of many generals and other military officers of great distinction. Several years had elapsed and nothing had been done in regard to those recommendations. No such Bill was necessary in order to form the Volunteer Force, as recommended by the Norfolk Commission, into brigades under those commanders who would have to lead them on mobilisation. No Parliamentary sanction was required to carry out that change except the adoption of the pay and allowances of those general officers who would have been necessary to command the brigades in divisions. He deeply regretted that the Secretary of State for War, not content with improving what was so easily susceptible of improvement, had thought it necessary to introduce a Bill which practically destroyed the Volunteer Force as it had existed since 1869. Several units had been utterly demolished and complete changes had taken place. They had not heard anything explicit as regarded the adjutants and other matters, and all those things had produced great disturbance in the Volunteer Force. What the right hon. Gentleman had to do was to form the Volunteer Force under this scheme de novo. He had stated that any member of the present force not willing to accept the new conditions would be entitled to his discharge. At present there was a force of 248,000 Volunteers, but how many of them would remain under the new conditions? The force was lamentably short of officers; he believed the shortage amounted to 2,800. It could not be expected until some years had lapsed that sufficient confidence would be established in the new order of things for the old members of the force to come in. That was a most serious condition of things in the present aspect of

523
affairs. He failed to see that any advantage would accrue to the Volunteer Force under the provisions of the Bill. What he found fault with in the right hon. Gentleman's policy was that in trying to establish a new military system he was tearing up everything that now existed, and was running the chance of establishing something indefinite and doubtful in its place. It had been stated that it was a lottery whether the men would come in under the new conditions. All he had to say was that if they did come in there was absolutely nothing between the country and forced military service. The Volunteer Force had saved the country from conscription for the past thirty years. Continental countries like France and Germany insisted upon having large numbers of men available for the expansion of their Army in the hour of need, and it was absolutely certain that if this scheme failed the old scheme would have been destroyed and nothing would remain but conscription. It had been said that the Bill was a safeguard against conscription, but he did not agree with that view. He could quite understand the position of Labour Members in deciding to oppose the Third Reading. He was an advocate of physical training for all classes of the male community, but he was a determined opponent of forced military service. Those who talked lightly about conscription and the advantages that it brought to Germany and other countries were not aware of the enormous evils of forced military service. The young men of this country were free from that obligation, and were not required to give three of the best years of their life to the service of the State. At any rate in that respect they had that advantage over their comrades on the Continent, but if this Bill failed there would be nothing for them but compulsory military service. He felt very strongly on this subject, and that was the reason he had taken an active part in the discussions upon the successive stages of the Bill. At the present time he had no desire to examine more closely into the dangers which he so much feared; the moment for doing that had passed. They had had no opportunity of examining the greater portion of the Bill. The result
524
of the unprecedented procedure which the Government had adopted was that many of its provisions remained undiscussed. That was a very serious state of affair as regarded the future interests of the Army. He was quite sure the Secretary of State for War would not assert for a single moment that there had been any obstruction or dilatory tactics. As a matter of fact he had already stated that the discussion had been of the most business-like character, and he was pleased to notice that the right hon. Gentleman now gave assent to that proposition. There was, however, one point which he desired to impress most earnestly upon the right hon. Gentleman, and it was that the Volunteers and the Yeomanry would never be satisfied until they had direct representation upon the Army Council itself. He was very sorry indeed to notice that his right hon. friend had set his face firmly against that proposition. It was a point on which there was absolute unanimity of opinion, and; it was a change recommended by the Norfolk Commission, who were of opinion that the Volunteer Force was entitled by its numbers and importance to be represented by a superior official, having an equal voice with any of the other members upon the Army Council. If in carrying the Bill through another place, the right hon. Gentleman found an opportunity of altering his views upon that subject he would not only give satisfaction to the Territorial Force, but also please a great many hon. Gentlemen who sat behind him. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that the penal clauses of the Bill were not necessary. With all his careful thought and patience and courtesy, the Secretary of State for War did not seem to appreciate the position of discipline in the Volunteer Force. It was not by courts of summary jurisdiction and courts-martial, and all the paraphernalia of a military code, that they would bring about military discipline in the Territorial Force. Discipline could only be established by instilling esprit de corps and by making every man feel that the honour of the regiment depended on his own individual and special exertions. His hon. friend opposite had had experience of the Volunteer Force, and knew full well the moral influence which they were able

525
to exert in order to create and maintain strict discipline. Many of the men in a company came from the same business establishment or factory. A man turned out of the Volunteer Force for any misconduct was at once the butt of many of his associates. Probably the matter would reach the ears of the foreman or the employer, and the man, even if nothing were said directly to him, knew that he was an object not of contempt but of pity, and he felt that what he had done was known. Cases of misconduct in Volunteer regiments were very rare indeed; every hon. Member who had commanded Volunteers would be able to confirm that statement. Upon this subject he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and mare particularly the cause of his absence. Upon a previous occasion the hon. Member had said that the Bill was drastic in its provisions and so full of penal clause and threats of punishments that if a Conservative or Unionist Government had dared to introduce it a note of alarm as to its disastrous effects would have been sounded in every county, city, town, and village of the country. The Secretary of State for War and the Government had, however, thought fit to introduce a measure of this character. He did not wish to conceal the fact that some of its provisions were viewed with favour by some of his hon. friends, although he did not share their views. The Secretary of State for War was a civilian student who had never himself been associated with the defensive forces of the country in either an honorary or an active capacity, and although he had gone fresh to the War Office imbued with civilian ideas, he had been captured and bound hand and foot by the large number of generals whom he had created. The right hon. Gentleman had doubled the strength of the generals at the War Office, and he was only able now, apparently, to look at affairs through their eyes. That was a matter which he deeply regretted. If the Bill received the approval of Parliament he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would do his best to make it a success. He wished, however, to warn the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government with which he was associated, that by
526
this new scheme they had taken upon themselves a very serious responsibility. If it was found in the course of a few years that the Territorial Reserve Forces Bill failed to fulfil all the anticipations which the House had been led to entertain in regard to it, and compulsory military service became necessary, the blame for it would lie upon those who had destroyed our present Auxiliary Forces, and attempted to create in their place a semi-military and semi-civilian system.
*MR. LEAsaid he objected to the Bill mainly on the ground of consistency, because it seemed to him inimical to all his ideas of Radicalism. At the last election he worked hard to capture a London constituency which had been represented by a Conservative for a great many years, and he never thought that he would live to witness a Radical Government, from which he had hoped so much, bringing in a Bill containing the drastic penal clauses to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had referred so ably and so fairly. As one who had served in the ranks himself he thanked the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for the kind way in which he had spoken of the soldiers. His view as to the value of cultivating esprit de corps amongst the men was the proper method to adopt not only for Volunteers but for Regulars as well. The penal clauses would not only do irreparable harm, but defeat the very purpose for which the Bill was introduced. He would take, first of all, the ground of consistency. The chief Whip of the Tory Party made a speech in his own constituency some weeks ago with which he had been very much struck. Referring to the machinery of the Bill he said that the god in the machine was the lord-lieutenant, and around him he would get a lot of gentlemen who would be county magnates. In nearly every case the lord-lieutenant was a Peer, and they had been telling the truth a great deal lately about the Peers. The chief indictment against them was that they barred progress in another place, and that they packed the bench as regarded justices of the peace. The whole scheme, as far as he had been able to understand the

527
Bill, depended upon the faithful and industrious co-operation of the lords-lieutenant. It did not seem to him likely that the men they had been blackguarding so much lately, and justifiably so, were going to help the Government to make the measure a success, or that they were likely to do their' best to make the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman work properly. He, certainly, if in their position, would do nothing to forward a scheme brought in by a Government like the present, pledged to Radical reforms. Those lords-lieutenant of counties were pro-con-scriptionists to a man, and they were in that respect like the bulk of the men who sat on the Army Council at the War Office. He could not help thinking that the gentlemen at the War Office who advised the Secretary of State to i bring in this Bill rather had their tongues in their cheeks all the time. He had not the slightest doubt that in their hearts they felt that this measure, even if it did go through in another place, was bound to become a failure sooner or later. He could not see how it could be otherwise. What was the chief cause of complaint at the present time against the Auxiliary Forces? It was that officers and men could not be got. If they made the conditions of service more drastic than they were now, and if they destroyed all the esprit de corps, as the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield had said would be done by the scheme, he did not see how they could possibly hope to get more men. When the scheme had utterly broken down and there were only the Regulars to fall back upon, times might have changed. This Government would have made mistakes, as all Governments did, and it might happen that with the swing of the political pendulum a majority of Conservatives would come in. He certainly viewed with the greatest degree of uneasiness the idea of a Conservative Minister of War coming down and saying: "My predecessor has abolished the Auxiliary Forces. He has wiped out the old machinery, and there is nothing left but conscription." Who was to say him nay with the complacent second Chamber which existed at the present time? In the old days the lords-lieutenant of the counties were tried and
528
found wanting, and he had heard nothing in the military history of the last thirty years to lead him to believe, that in 1907 they were more efficient as instruments of military organisation, and that they would favour the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He had seen nothing in the Bill to make him believe that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in throwing all the Auxiliary Forces into the melting pot and evolving something of which they had no knowledge or certainty, but which they looked upon with the greatest degree of doubt and disfavour. With regard to some of the penal clauses of the Bill he frankly confessed, as he had said in his own constituency, that he considered them an absolute disgrace in a Bill brought in by a democratic Government. Private Members had had no chance whatever of discussing those clauses, and he would like to point out one of the effects of Clause 10. At the present time if a man who in the Army or Navy had been dismissed with ignominy and disgrace, joined the Volunteers, what happened? He believed it was in the power of a colonel of Volunteers to have him brought before a magistrate, and the utmost punishment he would get would be a fine of 20s. with the option of seven days imprisonment. But supposing this Bill went through what would happen? That man would render himself immediately liable to martial law and he might get two years imprisonment. If he was wrong, the right hon. Gentleman would correct him. He supported the Amendment moved last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield to omit Clause 23. That clause, to his mind, was simply monstrous. He would take one case in point. He had only one battalion of Volunteers in his constituency. Let them suppose a Volunteer in that battalion, happening to be at the bar of a public house, saw and insulted one of his drill instructors. Both men might be in plain clothes, and the Volunteer might strike the drill instructor. According to martial law that man was liable to the most drastic and condign punishment. But supposing it was merely a civil offence, the most that could happen would be for the superior officer to issue a summons against him. Under this Bill, however, the

529
offence would be detailed to the police magistrate, and the officer could turn round and say that it was one cognisable by a court-martial, and the offender might be imprisoned for a term of three months. He ventured to say that if that provision were introduced by the present Bill and the Volunteers had it properly explained to them, recruiting would go down by 50 per cent. within a few weeks. He believed the Bill to be a reactionary measure of the worst kind. It was calculated, even assuming that it was the success which the right hon. Gentleman hoped it would be, to foster a spirit of militarism and jingoism. He objected especially to the clauses referring to the cadet corps and the bringing of instruction in the rifle into the public schools. He believed that the democracy of this country had had quite enough of such jingoism. The late war, and the events which led up to it, and all the Imperialism and flag-waving and formation of cadet corps, tended in one direction. They were sick and tired of it, and what the country wanted was the cutting down of military expenses. If they had money to spend let them devote it to social reforms which the democracy had been long waiting for.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid that so many references had been made by previous speakers to the Labour Party's attitude towards the Bill that it was imperative that someone should say a word or two before the division on the Third Reading took place. The Labour Members had consistently opposed the measure since its introduction. He would not go into the practical part of the Bill, or the scheme propounded by the Secretary of State for War, because he confessed candidly that he did not understand it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in his excellent speech had given the House to understand that nearly everything they had been discussing was outside of the Bill, and that the greater portion of the debates consequently had been debates between
530
experts on both sides of the House. He and his friends were amateurs, but though they were not able to understand all the technicalities of the measure, they were nevertheless interested in it. There were features of it which appealed to them very directly. Their first objection to the measure was that they were not satisfied that it was a safeguard against conscription. It might be intended to be a safeguard, but there were certain principles laid down in connection with the Bill that appeared to contribute towards the extension of the military spirit. Once the Bill was put into operation they feared, and he thought rightly so, that the successors of the present Government might take it into their heads to develop those principles. He and his friends feared also that the spirit of militarism that would have been engendered in the meantime would be so easy of development that the final and ultimate issue of the whole thing would be forced military service. They, therefore, instead of acquiescing in the introduction of any proposals which they apprehended might carry them in the direction of conscription, felt that they owed it as a duty to those whom they represented to object to such introduction by every possible means. Therefore, it ought to be clearly understood that they objected because they failed to see in the Bill any safeguard against the extension of militarism that might ultimately involve the country in conscription. They objected to the Bill because there was no necessity for it. The country was tired of the tremendous military expenditure which was now pressing so heavily upon the nation. All sections of the House would agree with him that there was one portion of the community which felt the tremendous extension of military expenditure, viz., that large industrial section with which he was so closely identified. It had been proved to demonstration both by the present and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the largest proportion of the revenue of the country was raised by indirect taxation; that was, that the wage-earning classes contributed a larger quota to the taxation in

531
proportion to their income than any other class. And it was on them that the tremendous pressure of the increase of military expenditure devolved. Therefore, he condemned that increase of expenditure both on the Army and on the Navy, and hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches who represented industrial constituencies ought to join the Labour Party in a most emphatic protest against any legislative experiment which would tend to increase rather than to lessen the tremendous burden on the workers of the country. He had no hesitation in saying—and he said it with all sincerity because it was his conviction—that if this measure had been introduced by the right hon. Member for Croydon acting in the interest of the Government which so recently sat on the Treasury Bench, the country would have resounded from end to end with the cry of the taxation of the poor in order to support the military policy of the late Government. It had been said that consistency was a jewel, and they ought to have another line of conduct from many hon. Members who would vote for the Third Reading of the Bill that night. They might salve their conscience by saying that the Bill was an improvement on anything introduced by the late Member for Guildford, or by the light hon. Member for Croydon; but that was a very poor satisfaction to the electors, who had turned out the late Government in the hope that they would get something vastly different. What was the use of the country turning out a Tory military Government if they were only to be supplanted by a Liberal Government with the same policy? The people were tired of this military policy, and expected that before now the Government would have gone far in the direction of a peace policy and have lessened military expenditure. Their objections to the details of the Bill had been clearly stated by the Leader of the Labour Party, who was not able to be present that night, and whose absence they all deplored, and by the hon. Member for Leicester. First of all, there was the question of the cadet corps. Amongst other duties imposed upon the County
532
Associations by the Bill was the creation of cadet corps. At the early stages of the debate the Labour Members strenuously objected to that provision, because it involved the public elementary schools. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had improved that part of the Bill, but he had not gone the length they desired. Public schools were still to be made the nursery of militarism under official sanction. Once the principle was admitted in regard to public schools, pressure would be brought to bear to extend the military training to the higher grade schools, and then to the elementary schools. There was another point, viz., the alteration of the civil character of the Volunteer Service. The right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had very ably dealt with that point, to which the Labour Members had always objected since the introduction of the Bill. They objected to this country being turned into an armed camp. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh did not believe that would be the result, but the Labour Members thought that in adopting this military policy the Government had stepped on to a slippery plane, and once started nobody knew where they would land. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for East St. Pan- eras had clearly shown the objectionable character of the penal clauses in the Bill, and what possibilities they might lead to. How ridiculous it was that they were to have courts-martial applied to Volunteers! They had tried to get that provision amended, but, possibly through a little bit of manœuvring, his hon. friend opposite so ght for hours an opportunity of moving his Amendment, but was always shut out by a succession of other speakers. It would be no surprise to hon. Members to be told that the Labour Party in tended to proceed to a division against the Bill. Even if they found that the right hon. Member for Croydon and others associated with him voted for the Third Reading, that would not lessen, but rather increase the responsibility of the Labour Party.
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member for Barnard Castle has announced that he, and these who act with him, will oppose the Third Reading of the Bill because they detect in the scheme of the Secretary for War a tendency towards conscription, and because they find in it no prospect of a substantial reduction of military expenditure. Upon that I have to make only one observation: that if this and succeeding Governments fail in their long and laborious task of reorganising our motley military forces, so as to make them adequate to the needs of our Empire, then we must inevitably come to conscription. I add —though this is but a speculative opinion—that conscription in this country will not bring with it any lightening of the financial burden, because with a possibility of increase on the Army we shall still have to maintain a Navy larger than that of any two Powers. Again, this country must always maintain and support what I may call a long-service Army to provide garrisons in India and at our coaling stations. That being so it is a matter of importance to us, and even to the hon. Member of Barnard Castle and hon. Members below the Gangway, not to thwart any Government which is endeavouring in all sincerity— though not perhaps on lines which commend themselves to everybody—to reorganise the forces of the Crown, so that they may become more efficient. Our position in this matter is somewhat lukewarm. We cannot accept any responsibility for this scheme, but we do not oppose it, because of the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, and because we hope and believe that his scheme does not involve the destruction or extirpation of any part of our military forces which may be tended and cultured until they become more effective. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman leaves the parent stems, so that they may survive and burgeon again in the future. But we cannot be enthusiastic about this Bill, because we do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made any very substantial advance towards the object which most of us have at heart of having our Regular Army made of sufficient size, and prepared for an oversea expedition, and, in the second place, of having the organisation of our Auxiliary Forces in such a condition that they may provide for the support and expansion of the Regular Forces. That
534
being our view we cannot speak with any fervour in this Third Reading debate. A Third Reading debate at any time has an air of unreality about it. It is something in the nature of a parade movement. All the old battalions of arguments, dusty with the service they have rendered for weeks, are marched past for the last time, and then we all go home. If the Opposition are opposed to the principle of a scheme, we say that the country is on our side, and that time will show. If, on the other hand, we entertain no conscientious objection to the principle and are met by concessions and practical methods for giving effect to the principle, then we congratulate the Minister on his sagacity, and in any case we are always glad to express our sense, as we certainly can do now, of the unfailing courtesy with which he has listened to our representations. But this occasion is peculiar, and calls for some words of comment. The Bill has but a very remote connection with the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. It is what I may call a conventional connection. We have all agreed to talk about the two things at the same time, and if we had not agreed to do so this Bill might have passed without discussion and left nobody much the wiser. It has boon called an enabling Bill, but I am not sure that it deserves even that title, for I believe the right hon. gentleman could have done nearly all he proposes to do without the Bill by announcing his general policy on Vote A and Vote 1 this year, and sketching its development on the same Votes in succeeding years. Next year, for example, he could say, "There are to be fewer Militiamen and fewer Volunteers, and I propose to pay them less," and in that manner he could have unfolded his scheme without bringing in any Bill at all. Even if this Bill is enabling, moreover, it is certainly not mandatory, and certainly not binding on the right hon. Gentleman. What does bind the right hon. Gentleman is this — he is bound by the declarations which he has made in the course of these discussions, and our feeling that we need not oppose the Bill depends on the fact that we give a modified assent to the Bill in the light of these declarations. How far has his original proposal been modified by the declarations which he has made in the course of these debates? Originally, the right hon. Gentleman proposed in the first place—certainly this had the first place in his mind and

535
certainly in the minds of some of his advisers—that the Regular Army should be so organised as to be capable of sending an expeditionary force of 167,000 men overseas, which is equivalent to the three Army Corps of which we used to talk. He intended to maintain that force in the field for six months, and in order to do so he originally intended to find about 40,000 or 46,000 men in drafts by practically killing the Militia and substituting seventy-four depot battalions. We took grave exception to that course. We thought such action would destroy not only the primary purposes, but also the secondary purposes, of the Militia, while it would do nothing to supply the deficiency of officers. We felt that the right hon. Gentleman was creating an unnecessary hiatus between the Expeditionary Force and the Territorial Forces, we therefore moved a reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading. I hope the changes which the Secretary for War has made will meet these objections. We have urged the right hon. Gentleman to retrace his steps in regard to the Militia, and he has seen his way to do so. And to return to his original idea, we are told that the British Militia will now conform to the plan of the Irish Militia, as we desired it should. That is all to the good, as far as it goes, and we do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth. We must take into account not only the bare announcements which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but the tone of his remarks. He said the Militia will keep their bands and colours, and so forth; we understand from that that they will keep their insignia to remind them of the part they have played with distinction in the past, and as an earnest that they will be permitted to play a like part in the future. With that we must be satisfied for the moment. But the right hon. Gentleman has not gone far enough. He has sown his seed of a short-service Army with an oversea obligation, and that every recruit in that force will receive six months preliminary training is all to the good; but more is required. The right hon. Gentleman must steadily cultivate the new county patriotism which came so much to the front in the South African War. What happened then shows the importance not only of preserving the county designation, but
536
of making battalions county battalions in reality, and not only in name. There is one other point on which I should like to hear more from the right hon. Gentleman. We attach great importance to battalion training. Our objections to the depot battalions originally contemplated, were based on the fact that you cannot train men by the 150 at a time, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that every one of these, 101 battalions now substituted for the depot battalions will be trained each year as a battalion; that they will come on the parade ground as a battalion during the period during which they are to train, however short it may be. We cannot pursue this subject now, but I think the right hon. Gentleman must feel that the country will not rest satisfied with a military force in which the recruits are drilled for six months when they join and only go into camp once in two years after that. I know no force of that character except the state militia of the different states of America. They have a preliminary drill and then only go into camp every other year. But I do not think the people of the United States regard that as an efficient training by any means. At the same time the conditions of the American militia are totally different from the conditions of the Militia hero. The services which might be required of them are far lighter and far more remote than these which these 101 battalions will have to perform. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must proceed on the lines we have indicated if he hopes to make a good job of the work he has undertaken. The work is before him and it. will not be done unless he makes the Militia battalions more a reality than we have gathered they will be from what he has said. I pass to the Territorial Forces The Militia is now part of the Reserve Forces and comes out as the rest of the Reserve does on the outbreak of a great war in order to supplement the power and the force; of the fighting line. I pass to the Territorial Forces by way of the Yeomanry because it has to discharge both functions. Part of the Yeomanry is to be in the Reserve; fourteen squadrons are to be in the Reserve and the rest is to be part of the Territorial Force pure and simple. We congratulate the light hon. Gentleman on his attempt to get these fourteen squadrons out of the Yeomanry, and we hope that he will succeed. They

537
will liberate four cavalry regiments for other work for which Regular cavalry is better suited. But how is the right hon. Gentleman going to get them? His plan is to make the existing Yeomanry regiments practically recruiting agencies and nothing more, for separate bodies of troops which will be despatched by them and which will never be seen again by the Yeomanry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not wedded unalterably to his plan with regard to the Yeomanry. I think he would be better advised to treat the Yeomanry as a sort of parent body from which these squadrons could be obtained, who should see that the man who goes to the front has had that training which the War Office requires. If he did that he would still have the Yeomanry to feed from and would not be troubled by the complicated question of drafts. The right hon. Gentleman originally suggested that the Yeomanry might act as divisional cavalry, that is to say, as the squadrons which accompany and precede each division of infantry. But he has since told us that some of his advisers doubt their fitness for that service, and he has thrown out the view that the Yeomanry might be better adopted to act as the "screen" behind the strategical cavalry or, as it is sometimes called, as the second line of security. But the Yeomanry are useless for either purpose unless they are mobile Mobility is the essence of mounted soldiery. Mounted men can never do the work the infantry do in a great war. They cannot develop a heavy continuous fire. That has to be done by the infantry, but what they can, and do de, is to bring power to bear at the right moment and at the right place. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse the services of any man who is ready to contribute to this great faculty of mobility, which depends upon three things —horse breeding, horse riding, and horse master ship. In order that these throe things may be fostered in a country that is mainly industrial no discouragement must be offered to any service connected with the breeding of horses, the riding of horses, and the control of horses. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not sacrifice the Irish Yeomanry or any part of the Yeomanry to the symmetry of a paper scheme. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that the Yeomanry would have to come
538
out as part of the Reserve, and it was pointed out then that no regiment constituted as the Yeomanry are could undertake that responsibility, but that is no reason for the discouragement of any man who desires to join the Yeomanry. Let him give as much training as he can to the Yeomanry—as much as they can take—but do not let him discourage any man who will make an efficient yeoman though he cannot come out as part of the Reserve. I pass to the Volunteers. I think to the Volunteers the same rule should apply. The Volunteers have a great faculty for inarching and shooting. Let not the right hon. Gentleman get rid of any man who desires to march or shoot, because he does not fit in with the symmetry of a paper scheme. He will need them all, and he should not discourage any one of them. Nor must he sap the responsibility of the commanding officer of the Volunteers. That being so, we hope the right hon. Gentleman will proceed further on the path he intends to follow, and we hope he will take in friendly part the criticisms which rested mainly on the gap we thought he was going to create. Our objections base I on that gap we. thought he had created are largely diminished by two features of the scheme as we now understand it. The first is that the 100 battalions of Militia go into the Reserve, and the second, the assurance we have received from the right hon. Gentleman that the training of the Territorial Force will not be so limited as we at first understood. Where the right hon. Gentleman finds one part of the Territorial Force will take a longer training, he will give it to them, I understand that from the right hon. Gentleman, and we hope he will always allow all these whose patriotic ardour lead them into the Auxiliary Forces to servo in these forces without let or hindrance. He must allow the various component parts of the Auxiliary Forces to develop on their own separate lines, and according to their own individual genius. His scheme cannot succeed even as a beginning unless he gets the co-operation of all these who are ready to help him, and he will not got that unless he recognises that the shape of each body is determined by the shape and character of its constituent elements. In other words he must not insist on each battalion being the same as every other battalion merely for the sake of symmetry. The right hon. Gentleman must accept the service

539
of every man who is willing to help him. In this country four separate sources of patriotism feed the Forces of the Crown. There is the young man who is ready to go into the long-service Army because he has a taste for soldiering, a love of adventure, or a wish to go abroad; and there is the lad who, being too young, perhaps, to join the Regular Army, is ready to go into the home service Army or the Militia. The two other channels into which patriotism flows are the Yeomanry and the Volunteers. They have twice sprung into existence in the course of a hundred years in response to the call of a national emergency. Does not all that prove that there is something inherent in the genius of the race which desires the variety of the Regular soldier, the Militiaman, the Yeoman, and the Volunteer? The right hon. Gentleman may call them what he likes, but he cannot alter their nature, and if he seeks to train them violently into one channel he will run the risk of drying up one or other of these fountains of patriotism to which we must turn in the hour of the Empire's need.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington): I should, indeed, be a partisan, and I should indeed, be ungrateful, if I did not at once acknowledge the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover has addressed the House. His speech has been directed to a criticism, not in a Party spirit, but in a scientific spirit, of the proposals embodied in this Bill. Indeed, I may go beyond the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and say of the debate as a whole that although we have had moments of acute controversy, which are inevitable in a great and prolonged discussion, the tone of the Opposition, and the tone of the House generally, oven where we did not agree, have been characterised by a desire to help at getting at the truth about this complicated and difficult problem. I attach more importance to that fact for the reason which I gave in the first speech I made upon this subject more than a year age in this House, that it is impossible for any one Parliament to accomplish this enormous piece of work, that the reorganisation of the Forces of the Crown must be a matter not only of successsive Parliaments, but of continuous policy; and the friendly attitude not only of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
540
Dover, bat of the Leader of the Opposition, gives the chance—whatever differences we may have about secondary matters—of laying some foundation upon which, having once begun to build, we should continue to build until the structure is completed in a proper fashion. There have been criticisms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, and my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. It is said, why have we taken all this time upon a Bill which really is not necessary? Could not all these things have been done without the Bill? One of these right hon. Gentlemen spoke as a soldier; the other spoke as a military expert. I can speak as an expert, only of another kind. I am a lawyer; and I own that to me the proposition that we could have carried out the reorganisation of the Army without this Bill is an astounding one. How anyone versed in the constitutional history of this country could imagine that you could bring forward proposals for the reorganisation of the Forces of the Crown into two lines—the second line being under new statutory regulations, with a new organisation, and, therefore, being a new force—except by the authority of Parliament, passes my comprehension. To have done this without the authority of an Act of Parliament would have been the most unconstitutional proceeding known for many years. Many of the provisions of the Bill are absolutely essential if the scheme is to be carried out. You have got to substitute for the old legislative machinery new legislative machinery; you have to get rid of useless statutes and divergent regulations, and get a single, simple system of regulations by legislation such as this. I know it is complicated, I know that the Bill is long and prolix, making heavy demands on the time of the House which I would have been glad to have seen give to social reforms, but it is essential, if a step forward is to be made in Army reorganisation; and I do feel that if, on this side of the House, our mission is to deal rather with social than with military problems, at all events in a Parliament, that is strong, vigorous, and, I would add, Radical, we could approach the consideration of this matter in a spirit so thorough and so determined as to let no technical difficulties stand in the way. Even the right hon. Gentleman, I think, would have found more difficulty with

541
his Party, so many of whom have filled high and honourable positions in the Service, and have developed high and difficult views which have to be reconciled, and which would make it almost impossible for his Party to proceed in the manner and with the freedom which we have had in out power on this side of the House. Therefore, if this Bill has taken much time, I for one am comforted in thinking that this new and vigorous Parliament has in it the power which probably no Parliament has had for some time past, and possibly is not likely to have for some time to come. We have had a golden opportunity, which we have seized, for passing such a Bill. I would remind my hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle that if we are go have discipline and cohesion in the Army we must have some kind of penalties, and if my hon. friend will do me the favour to consider the old Volunteer statutes, and, above all, the old Yeomanry statutes, he will find just the same things in a worse form than is asked for now. The very scheme we have here, every code of discipline and every penalty, is based on the Yeomanry provisions, and what we have got here is really the reproduction of the machinery which is perfectly familiar to these who are conversant with the organisation of the Volunteers and Yeomanry. I venture to prophesy that if the scheme becomes operative the difficulties which the hon. Member anticipates are not likely to arise in practice, and that the provisions which are essential to discipline are not likely to become oppressive, and may not come into operation in the case of three-fourths of the force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover reminded me of the Amendment he moved in a speech of much eloquence on the Second Reading, and said that after all his Amendment had been of some use, because we are much nearer to it than we were. I doubt it. The Amendment was to the effect that every force should be organised according to its idiosyncracy. The very point of this Bill has been to negative that, and to organise the forces in two lines., bringing into the second line all these idiosyncracies of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and to get the men who used to form the old separate forces together under a common system. If today we have reached a state of things in which we
542
have been able to deal much more lightly and tenderly with Militia traditions that at another time was proposed, it is due to this, that it is now possible to hope that the Militia and their commanders will come into the scheme, and take their places by the side of the Regulars, and give us these things of which we have been in want. Now, I come to another point of which a good deal has been made in the course of this debate. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean said, "Economy you cannot got so long as you preserve this great expeditionary force at home and try to organise it." But I have before now pointed out to the House of Commons that this expeditionary force, of which so much has been spoken, is not got by calling new forces into existence, not by adding new soldiers, but by taking a part of what we have and reorganising it in peace into a cohesive whole. We are not making a new force. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean said, "It is quite true that you are not taking now men for the expeditionary force, but you are sticking to the Cardwell system, and thereby precluding yourself from reducing the number of men at home." That is a point on which my right hon. friend has always insisted, but I never could get him to produce the details of a counter-scheme. Whether he has been warned by the fate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon or not I do not know, but he has never produced a scheme of his own to take the place of the Cardwell system.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is one before the right hon. Gentleman by General Miles.
MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of it,
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: It was issued officially with the assent of the Army Council as a lecture affording information.
MR. HALDANE: I have the greatest admiration for General Miles, and I have had a great many conversations with him on this subject, but what astonishes me more than anything is to hear General Miles quoted as an opponent of the Cardwell system. I have not road the paper. I have not had it before me, and I am perhaps influenced by conversations which I had with General Miles, but it would surprise me to find that he is an opponent of the Cardwell system. But

543
what I want is my right hon. friend's scheme. He has been a long time in this House, and we do not want to be told by him that the Cardwell system cannot last; what we want to know is what he is going to put in its place. How are you going to train your troops? You have got to raise the men to be sent abroad and that involves much training, which again involves the building of big depots at a cost of perhaps £10,000,000 straight away to begin with. Then comes the question as to how many men you want. That depends on your terms of service, and if you have to on list men on the same scale as at the present time, then comes the very serious question whether you would get the men in that fashion, or get them by enlisting them in less numbers than under the Cardwell system. Thirdly, there is this. You propose under this scheme to keep a large number of troops abroad in India and the Colonies, and so on—a small number at home, and a very large number abroad. Very well, then; when you have got to draw upon that large Army how will you keep alive the supply for drafts? We have experience; we are not speaking in ignorance. The Cardwell system arose out of the terrible deficiencies of our military organisation disclosed in the Crimean War. That was the reason why Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cardwell invented the Cardwell system, and that was the reason of the systematic organisation to produce drafts for keeping the Army alive. The deplorable condition of things under which our troops fought in the Crimean War led to the departure from the old system to which my right hon. friend apparently would return.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: No, no. My right hon. friend knows perfectly well I never said anything of the kind, and the right hon. Gentleman must not attribute that to me. I am in favour of a short service Army supported by Reserves.
MR. HALDANE: Now we have got it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: The right hon. Gentleman his not got anything new. I have said it about thirty times in debate.
MR. HALDANE: My right hon. friend is in favour of a large short service system, but he knows that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon got into difficulties over that.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: He never
544
had the opportunity of developing it; it was a partial experiment.
MR. HALDANE: Now, see what are the perplexities of an unfortunate War Minister between two conflicting authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon a little more than an hour ago declared that he had produced a full scheme and that I had murdered it. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean here says something else. I own I was under the impression that I had found a drowned baby, and I decently interred it. But that does not seem to be so. I now find that my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean is only waiting for a good short service Army scheme on a large scale and he will give his assent to it. I hope for further developments, and I shall return to the study of my right hon. friend's writings and speeches with enhanced interest; but I am bound to say that I doubt whether his proposition could be suggested to the House on the ground of economy. Short service is all very well, but you should realise what it is. It moans that with the short service system they stay with the colours two years or perhaps less; and as they go out sooner, you require more recruits, so that you are always training an enormous number of recruits.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: What about the Guards?
MR. HALDANE: Theirs is a three years service, and the right hon. Gentleman does not recommend that model.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do most distinctly. I am not speaking of the privileges and the pay of officers, but man for man, and pay for pay, the Guards produce an infinitely larger force for the same price.
MR. HALDANE: Of course, with three years with the colours and nine with the Reserve you get a very large Reserve. But the number of men with the colours at any time cannot be very largo, and the enormous number of recruits makes two great demands—men and money—both very difficult to satisfy. Therefore, I await with curiosity some further details of this short service Army scheme before I come to a conclusion about it. I have come to a conclusion about that of the right hon. Member for Croydon, and every criticism that applies to that must apply to the scheme of my right hon. friend, which I have not yet

545
had the pleasure of seeing. It is quite true, as was observed by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, that this Bill is capable of considerable variation in the mode of its application, and what is more it is intender so to be. I am embarking on a scheme of Army reorganisation which goes far beyond this Bill. My conception of the function of the British Army is that it should resemble that of the British Navy. It should be small, but highly mobile, and highly trained; and for purposes of that kind you cannot have a huge machine which will at short notice give you great numbers of troops, admirable for fighting at home, but not for being sent thousands of miles away. You want a small, voluntary, highly-trained force capable of transport to the most distant parts of the earth. I have always thought that we have never dealt in serious earnest with that conception; and it is a desire to do so that underlies this scheme. I do not want to put my strength into keeping troops abroad. I would rather keep them at home, which is less expensive, in such a form that they are easily transportable, with the aid of the Navy, and can be made operative at great distances with facility. For that reason certain steps have been taken independently of this Bill. In the first place, we have the organisation into six divisions, with four cavalry brigades and the proper complement of artillery. As far as men in the first line are concerned, that is already complete. That was done by the Army Order of last January. What remains deficient is what may be called the auxiliary services, the non combative elements, and the provision of drafts for war. It is a long business building them up. These auxiliary services come from the civilian population, and one of the purposes of this scheme of organisation in two lines is to get from the civilian population the help you require. We hope, in the shape of Special Reservists, to get enough to make an expeditionary force before long completely capable of mobilisation. One thing that makes me rejoice over the new arrangement or further development, to which the Leader of the Opposition has so much assisted, is that we shall get better provision for supplying the wastage of war if the Militia come in. There will be an increase of 12,000 men available from the Militia; and I wish hero to correct a slip I made in answer to a Question of the right hon. Member for East Worces-
546
tershire. He asked what difference this would make in our financial statement. I was thinking of cost rather than the figures on the paper; but as regards the latter, the net result is that 12,000 men are added instead of, as I suggested, 3,600. I thought that the financial statement was based on battalions of 600, and not of 500, but that was not the case; so that the figures are affected by the addition of 12,000 men to the Regular side—men who are taken from what would have gone into the Territorial line. That is only a matter of transfer; but it makes my statement technically inaccurate, though not adding really to the cost, because the establishment we have taken for the Territorial Army will remain at 300,000, That is the establishment; but the numbers must be affected for some time by the deduction of these 12,000 men. The additional cost will be largely met by savings effected by the transfer. As I have said, the broad principles of the scheme are, first, to organise a force of six divisions and four cavalry brigades with proper artillery out of the material we actually have. We hope to have a highly mobile expeditionary force, more effective than anything we have had before, and more in consonance with our naval traditions. For this purpose it is necessary to get certain auxiliary services put into shape; and the new feature of the scheme is that we propose to get these services on what I call a Militia basis—I mean by that, men whose occupations are primarily civilian. The third principle is, particularly by these men we aim at getting from the civilian population, to bring the Army into closer contact with the nation than has hitherto been the case. That is very important. I do not know whether people realise, when they talk of our Army, how much it presents a great social problem in our midst—what it means to have a great body of 300,000 men in the middle of the population whose social welfare is of great importance, and who, according as their condition is good or bad, have a profound effect on the whole social organism. The soldier ought no longer to be a person so much apart; he ought to be brought more closely into touch with the rest of the population, and with the social environment of which he forms a part. If this is to be done completely, a second line is necessary. Another principle is that, if the second line is to

547
be effective, the County Associations, or something corresponding to them, are an absolute necessity. Otherwise you get the Army ruled from a central Department, and you lose the facilities which organisations of a local character give for bringing the Army into contact with the people. All these things are only the outcome of the great distinction which we make between the two military functions of administration on the one hand, and command and training on the other. If there is one thing with which I have identified myself, it is the attempt to bring up in military estimation the administrative side of Army work. Men who have done splendid work in that branch have not always had due recognition in competition with the combative branch of the service. Yet from the administrative side have sprung some of the greatest commanders, like Lord Kitchener, who distinguished himself first of all as a great administrator, before he occupied the great position which he now holds in India. Of this scheme this Bill forms only a single part. Without this Bill the scheme was impossible. Therefore I do not apologise to the House for the time which it has taken to get this great Bill through its various stages; and if about this scheme I have no feeling of certainty that I have foreseen all that was necessary—if I have realised that time may bring changes and improvements which I cannot see in the conceptions embodied in it, and that in other hands it may work out differently —at least I have the comfort and satisfaction of knowing that the businesslike tone of the discussions in Committee gives some assurance that we have reached a stage at which Army policy is being looked at not merely in a Party spirit, but with a genuine desire on all sides of the House for continuity.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid it would be well on that occasion to examine the outstanding features which had come to the front, not only during the discussion of this Bill, but in regard to the Army generally during the last six months. He thought it would not be denied, as far as the Regular Army was concerned, that the most important change was the reduction of 20,000 officers and men, with a corresponding reduction in the Army Reserve. As far as the Territorial Force was concerned, he per-
548
sonally was deeply grateful that the Militia was to be retained under, more or less, the old conditions, with the modification that they should undertake in future liability to serve abroad, not only in their units, but also by sending drafts to reinforce the Regular Army in time of need. He did not think that anyone on that side of the House would welcome the reduction in the number of the Regular Forces, because after the experience of this country in connection with the South African War, when they had hastily to raise large bodies of men at great expense, and under disadvantageous circumstances, it was very unwise at this stage in the history of nations to reduce the numbers. The Empire had increased, and if we were to maintain our position in the world with not only an increased Empire in various parts, but with in-creased responsibilities with regard to Protectorates, such as Egypt, it was a suicidal policy in the interest of economy which the Government had gone into with reference to the Army. The Members of the Government had not reduced their own salaries when they made a reduction in the Army. The Regular Army was, if anything, smaller now than it was 100 years ago, though then, he admitted, we were engaged in a life and death struggle with practically the whole of Europe. Still, when they considered the immense increase in population, wealth, and trade, and also the enormous expansion of the Empire, he thought that the reduction in the Regular Army now being carried out should give rise to serious disquiet. While hon. Members on that side of the House wore deeply grateful for the concession made on the Report stage that the Militia should be retained, he did not think they could give the entire credit for that to the Government, because it was owing to the wise suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that the alteration was made at all. The only use of retaining the Militia was that they might see what could be made of that force. The Militia was deficient in numbers, organisation, and everything that made for a real and effective striking force. He hoped the Government would do all in their power to make the Militia a real aid to the Regular Forces and a means of expansion behind the Regular Forces in time of need. If that were done, they would have a very considerable force to help the first

549
line in any grave national emergency or great war. In addition to the Militia, they would have behind the Regular Army the First Class Army Reserve, which would number, according to the Secretary of State for War, 110,000 men. The right hon. Member for Croydon thought it could not possibly reach anything like that figure, and put it at 80,000 roughly. When experts differed it was impossible for others to decide who was right and who was wrong, but if they took the number to be 100,000 men he believed they would not be far out. The Militia arrangements would provide for twenty-seven Fourth Battalions with a nominal establishment of 800 men. He did not think it would be contended by the Government or anybody who had any knowledge of the sort of men who enlisted in the Militia that the whole of these 800 men would be available to go abroad to help the Regular Army. Deducting men under ago and of insufficient physique, if they got 500 out of the 800 they would have a generous allowance. That would give 13,000 or 14,000 more men to support the Regular Army in a great national emergency. Originally the depots were to have an establishment of 600 men, but now he understood that that number was cut down to 500. He supposed the same conditions would apply to them as to the Fourth Battalions. There would be a large percentage who would be under age or of insufficient physique, and if they took 300 out of the 500 they would get out of the seventy-four Third Battalions 22,000 men; that was to say they would have 14,000 of the Fourth Battalions and 22,000 of the Third Battalions, making together 36,000 men available for service, besides 100,000 men of the First Class Army Reserve. These men were to have six months training on enlistment and fifteen days annual training. The only really bad part of the Militia scheme was that the annual training was to be reduced from twenty-eight to fifteen days. He strongly protested against that. He had served twice in the Militia, and he could state that fifteen days would be insufficient, but that with twenty-eight days annual training men of proper physique might do very well. He believed it was in the interest of economy that the Government proposed to reduce the period of annual training, but it was
550
a pity "to spoil the ship for a ha'porth o' tar." If they were only going to give fifteen days training, he was afraid that they must take a considerable amount off the value of the men as a military asset. It was not as if they were dealing with the class of men who supplied the Volunteer Battalions—men who were in constant employment, and very often could not get leave for more than eight days. The great majority of the Militia could afford to come out for a month without great inconvenience. He hoped that the Government would reconsider that point, which was a purely administrative question. If it was found in the future that fifteen days training was nut sufficient, the Government might revert to twenty-eight days. From the very beginning he had had the deepest distrust of the suggestion to enlist men in the Reserves who had not served in the Regular Army. He did not refer to telegraphists or railway men, but he objected to take young fellows of seventeen and train them in a superficial way, and then in time of war send them out as drafts. He knew that there was no hope of any Amendment being accepted at that stage; but they were told last week that another Bill was going to be amended by the Government in another place. If so, he trusted the Government would consider whether they could not later on modify the proposals as to special Reservists contained in Clause 29. He thought no one should be placed in the special Reserve unless he had served at least four years in the Territorial Force. With four annual trainings of fifteen days each, and. then a six months training, a man at the ago of twenty-two would have some knowledge of what a battalion and a regiment were, and what wore their traditions. There was no sentiment in living in a big barracks under officers whom they had never seen before and would never see again. His plan had the further advantage that it would enable the Territorial soldier to have an opportunity of serving his country at the front if he wished. Of course, it might be said that they could do that under Clause 12. That was so, but the power under that clause had been so minimised that it would be practically never used. At any rate, the present Government, so far as he could see, would not put it in force. Another consideration was cost. Were they going

551
to pay men for three years, certainly for two, for doing nothing at all, and during these years the Government be precluded by regulation from sending them abroad? Now that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the Militia under his wing, he hoped he would make them an efficient force behind the first line. Surely it was necessary to regard quality rather than quantity. Paper strength was nothing, effective strength everything. They were told that the Bill was the last bulwark, the last entrenchment thrown up against any system of compulsory service; but he thought the House would be ill-advised if they put aside altogether the possibility of a demand being made by the people of the country for some form of compulsory service. Although at the present moment the number of these who advocated compulsory service was not very large, there were amongst them many distinguished men whose opinion should carry great weight and command a respectful hearing. He referred to such men as Lord Roberts and Lord Milner. Personally he hoped that the Bill would be a success. He did not wish for compulsory service, and the National Service League in this programme expressly excluded compulsion for foreign service, so all they had to do was to examine the problem of home defence. Under the Bill what troops would be available for home defence? He supposed they could count for the first two or three months after the outbreak of war on a certain number of regular troops being retained in this country. But they would be young, and not very well trained. There would be twenty-seven fourth battalions, and seventy-four third battalions; in all 50,000 men of trained Militia, who had had six months training on enlistment, and fifteen days annual training. The National Service League proposed that every man should have to undergo six months military training when he arrived at the age of eighteen, serve fifteen days annually, and previous to that he should have preliminary training in the schools and in rifle clubs. Therefore they would get under this Bill 50,000 men trained exactly as the National Service League wished. As to the Yeomanry, they would have some sixteen or fifteen days annual training, and although the conditions of the Yeomanry regiments did not come up to the standards of the
552
National Service League, still he did not think it could be contended that a considerable proportion of the Yeomanry regiments would not be able to rank with that 53,000 men. They could not, perhaps, rely on the whole 25,000, but they could upon 20,000, and thus they would have 70,000 troops in England trained as desired by the advocates of compulsory service. They must also not forget the Volunteers, of whom they would have the same number as in the past, viz., some 250,000 men. Nobody pretended that the Volunteers at the present moment, without a considerable amount of training, were fit to face the highly trained troops of foreign powers; they could not be expected to be as good without some months training. But there would be 70,000 men, as well or nearly as well trained as the National Service League desired, and 250,000 Volunteers behind them, and that force ought to be sufficient to protect this country from raids, serious or otherwise, without its being necessary to train all the males at the age of eighteen. There were, necessarily, difficulties. We had to depend upon our Naval strength, but as long as our Navy was able to hold the seas against the two strongest Powers no serious invasion could take place, and he thought that under this Bill, if it was a success, we should, without compulsory service, get a force which would enable us to stave off an attack if it were made. That force would not be able to meet an invasion of 200,000 men, but he did not think any foreign power would be able to land that number of troops in these islands. If they did it would mean that the fleets of these opposed to us were stronger than ours, and in that case they would simply starve us out. That was obvious when he pointed out that out of 35,000,000 quarters of wheat consumed in this country every year 27,000,000 quarters came from abroad. If these figures were considered it would come home to hon. Members how exceedingly important it was that our Fleet should be strong, and be our first and even our second line of defence. Although he was arguing against compulsory service and hoping that the Bill would save the country from it, he did not see anything inherently wicked in it. After all, it was what a democratic country like France had got, and there was nothing wrong in the idea of every citizen defending his own country. He thought, however, the

553
advantages of voluntary service outweighed the advantages of compulsory service, and therefore he hoped that voluntary service would continue in this country for a long time. Dealing with a. minor point of the Bill he wished to say that it was quite wrong to try in any way to interfere with the powers of commanding officers. Every officer must be, to use an Irish expression, captain of his own ship, even if it was on land, and if the commanding officer was away his place could be taken by his subordinates. He trusted the Bill would be a success, but as he did not agree with some of the details, especially in regard to special Reservists, he would have to vote against it if a division took place. He hoped, however, that in the future the Bill would solve the very difficult and complicated question of our national defences.
*MR. REESsaid it appeared from the statement of the hon. Member for Galway that the Irish battalions would vote against the Bill, although they voted for the Second Reading, because they were dissatisfied with the decision of the Government in regard to the Irish Council Bill. The hon. Member had said that if there was any Imperialist in the House he would appeal to him to say what the Irish Members could do except to vote against the Bill. He was aware that no hon. Members on his side of the House deserved the lofty designation of Imperialist, but to his mind the question was whether this particular Bill was a good Bill or a bad Bill. The question before the House had nothing to do with the Irish Council Bill, and if hon. Members voted for it on the Second Reading, they ought, he thought, to vote for it on the Third Reading. Leaving the Irish, he had to say that his own constituents were grateful for the changes which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced in regard to the Militia, and which in his humble way he had urged him to make though others of greater authority had also pressed for similar changes of plan. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the changes were more apparent than real. He hoped the changes wore or might be made very real. The right hon. Gentleman had also made concessions in regard to the Yeomanry for which, he thought, thanks
554
should be expressed; he was certain the Montgomeryshire Yeomanry was in favour of such changes, as well as other gallant regiments. The Secretary for India, in the Indian debate, spoke of the fact that there was to be a fresh appropriation of charges between the Indian Government and the Home Government in respect of matters of joint interest. That could not be done unless the Secretary for War assented, and he was grateful also for that concession. One of the most important changes would, he hoped, be about the capitation grant, and he trusted that some arrangement would be made which was satisfactory to India. He. thought the Home Government had always desired to do justice to India and that in the main there was no cause for complaint, in spite of the monstrous and misleading statements made in the House by Members representing the Bengal Congress point of view; but he believed in regard to this matter there was some sore existing which he hoped it was likely would be healed. As to Clause 2, Subsection 2 (b) referring to establishing or assisting cadet battalions and corps, and also rifle clubs by county associations, provided that no financial assistance should be given by an association in respect of any person in a battalion or corps in a school in receipt of a Parliamentary grant until such person had attained the age of sixteen, he would have preferred the Bill as it originally stood, but he recognised that the right hon. Gentleman was in a difficult position in regard to the matter. The right hon. Baronet had referred to Mr. Deakin, who had spoken as to the efficacy of bodies of that sort in Australia, and particularly in Now Zealand, and held them up to this House as an example to be followed. Inasmuch as the New Zealand people had been held up as an example in regard to female suffrage, there was no reason why they should not be regarded as being sensible in regard to the physical training of the young in respect of which he did think their action most sensible. He therefore did not apologise for referring for a moment to what had been done in Now Zealand, where it seemed that physical training and training in the use of the rifle was common in every school throughout the colony, and was an unqualified success. It was found that twelve years of ago was not at all too early to begin with miniature rifles and

555
miniature ranges, and that wonders could be done by boys of that age. He would also cite the case of the City of London Boys' Shooting Club, the members of which were drawn from the elementary schools of London, and in which boys were not allowed to be enrolled without the consent of their parents, which was very seldom withheld. The average age of the boys was thirteen, but many joined in their twelfth year, and the club had 500 members. One of the rules was, "The rifle is a weapon of precision. It is also dangerous when carelessly used; therefore, as it may be loaded, always treat it as dangerous." What advice could be more useful, and would not its adoption have prevented the painful accident to which reference had been made at Question time. He appealed to Members who more immediately represented labour to consider these facts, and consider whether this was a question which could be disposed of by the very positive and ex cathedra kind of way in which it was treated by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. Let him consider who were the first to suffer if anything went wrong with the Army and Britain suffered a reverse. They were the wage earners. He would like to make one quotation with regard to this matter. Colonel Repington, an authority equally honoured on both sides of the House, said—
"We have no chance of maintaining the integrity of this vast, scattered, and composite Empire of ours, unless the youth of England are brought up in the fixed and unalterable belief that their duty is to defend the Empire wherever it may be attacked, and to train their minds and bodies to carry out this first and greatest duty to themselves and their country."
He had been much pained to hear the hon. Member for Woodstock talk as he did about bringing up boys to the "duty of slaughter." He himself lived as much as his duties allowed him to do, at Harrow, and if the hon. Member saw these boys taught to use the rifle, and considered who they wore, what manner of boys they were and whose children they were, he would not have used that expression. It was not "the duty of slaughter," but the noble art of defending our country that was taught. The right hon. Member for Dover had very pertinently asked why there should be this sharp distinction between these boys and the boys of other classes that the one set
556
of boys were privileged to learn this noble lesson, and the other set prohibited by law. And when the hon. Member for Salford spoke of "prattling boys of fourteen, "he could only say he had seen boys of fourteen or fifteen perfectly proficient in the use of this weapon. There were boys in the Army and the Navy who had proved themselves heroes under the age of sixteen, and to treat them as if they were children and to forbid their being trusted with a rifle was to forget what a boy of fifteen or sixteen was and what he was intended to become. What was needed was to encourage shooting and to provide in all military centres something like a proper rifle range. He had again and again pressed for such at Welshpool and urged even that financial aid should be given at that important centre. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was opposed to the linked-battalion system, and said it was one of the things that led to our having to maintain so very expensive an Army. The right hon. Baronet frequently turned to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division to invite his concurrence, and said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and he had worked together. They certainly had. Their unanimity was wonderful, and when they differed from one another they differed as one star differed. from another star in glory. The linked-battalion system, whether good or bad, had provided drafts for the Army in India, and that was the real question, because the Army at home was the shadow, and the Army in India the substance. Lord Cardwell's system, under which, ever since the time of the Mutiny, this country had been able to provide drafts for India, was a working system, and he would like to know, before it was condemned, what was going to take its place. The right hon. Baronet invoked the high authority of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. That did not frighten him. The Leader of the Opposition was also the political leader of the blue-water school, but it must be remembered that that system postulated what no nation could postulate with safety. It postulated an ever victorious Navy, and proceeded on the basis that by no possibility could this island be invaded. In the last century there were several small invasions in Ireland, and he submitted

557
that what could take place in a small way one hundred years ago might take place in a large way to-day. The great difficulty of enlarging the basis of our military strength in India was that we could not increase the native Army. We had to maintain a certain proportion between the native and the white troops. There was a small white garrison, and a vast Indian population, and our Fleet in Eastern waters was so much reduced in numbers that there was at the present moment not a single battleship on the China station. This was not therefore the time to suggest that we should lay hands on the linked-battalion system, or to reduce the expenditure on the forces, or suggest, as the right hon. Baronet had, that the expeditionary force could be usefully cut down. Was it not the case that every world-politic movement tended to bring potentially hostile nations into more immediate political relations with our Indian Empire, and thus to increase the complexity of its problems of defence? If that were the case, and he challenged contradiction, should we be made suddenly to relinquish a system which had served us well in the past? It would be too late at the end to say that it had been done in a brain storm, and to appeal to experts of a certain character by way of excuse. It was true that some relief had been given in respect of providing drafts by the system introduced on the north-west frontier of India by the late Viceroy, Lord Curzon, to whom he would not now refer save to say that he entirely disassociated himself from certain comprehensive and undeserved attacks which had recently been delivered against him in the House. Our naval and military strength was merely an insurance of our commerce and our national defence How it could be thought that we could retain everything we had, which was the best of everything in this world, without being prepared to fight for it, passed his comprehension. Let them look for a moment to America, which was not a military monarchy, and see what they thought there on this very subject. We should never have a nation of arms unless we had correct views as to the duty and necessity of bringing up the youth of our land in a belief that it was their duty to defend their country, and to consider that duty their greatest privilege. In
558
America the President's recent message to Congress terminated as follows —
"The Congress has most wisely provided for a national board for the promotion of rifle practice. Excellent results have already come from this law, but it does not go far enough. Our regular Army is so small that in any great war we should have to trust mainly to Volunteers; and in such event these Volunteers should already know how to shoot, for if a soldier has the fighting edge, and ability to take care of himself in the open, his efficiency in the line of battle is almost directly proportionate to excellence in markmanship. We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different parts of the country, and should in every way encourage the formation of rifle clubs throughout all parts of the land. The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excellent example in all matters connected with building up an efficient citizen soldiery."
He did not very often agree with the hon. Member for Abercromby, but he agreed with what he had said as to the suitability of the Swiss system in this respect for our imitation. He would instance the German Empire. He was not going to say a word about the Imperial German Army or Navy, or any other aspect of her Imperial Government; but upon this point what had the German Socialists to say? They were people who might naturally be expected to take antimilitary views, but they said —
"The ideas and the anti-militarist propaganda of Hervé are impossible in German social democracy. German social democracy is the avowed adversary of the present military system, but it considers that a military organisation is necessary. So long as the danger exists and wars are possible, every nation should possess a military organisation sufficient for resisting an aggressive war and defending its own territory against the invasions of the enemy. If German social democracy supports every loyal initiative with the object of avoiding war and assuring peace it nevertheless considers a military organisation indispensable so long as the danger of war exists. It is for this reason that German social democracy has inscribed in its programme, first, education which will render all citizens fit for military service. Consequently, if a member of the German Socialist Party propagates ideas and claims analogous to these that Hervé defends, one would be justified in asking, in virtue of the programme of the Socialist Party, Does this member still belong to that Party?"
Then, again, he might take the French Republic. General Picquart, one of the most eminent men of France, who had indeed suffered in the cause of justice

559
and proved himself a friend of humanity, had said—
"The closer one's acquaintance with the army the more e evident it became that it approached the noblest and most elevated demo ratio ideal. What nobler example of equality could there be than that of thousands of young men of all classes daily devoting themselves to the same duties and making the same sacrifices?"
That was said in a country where they had gone infinitely further than we would go, or than he would propose to go, in regard to military training and service. He was himself in favour of such training, but not of conscription. General Picquart went on to say—
"What finer example of collectivism could there be than that given by these men who had everything in common, and who would bear the same burdens in the hour of danger?
He submitted these words to the consideration of the representatives of the Labour Party who were present, and he thought they would find it exceedingly hard to answer the quotations which he had ventured to put before them. It was their vote which he would like to see turned in this matter. The Irish battalion, from what he had heard said by the hon. Member for Galway, were not going to join in supporting the right hon. Gentleman, who, he believed, was worthy of support in this matter. He desired to say a word with regard to the audit of the accounts of the County Associations. He had urged that these audits should be made by chartered accountants, and that was a matter which excited some interest in the City. He had mentioned the chartered accountants as a representative class, but there were also the incorporated accountants who were equally capable of performing the duty, who had the confidence of the public, and should be regarded as equally eligible. He hoped that when the right hon. i Gentleman considered this point—and he had promised to consider it favourably— he would take advantage of the services of the chartered and incorporated accountants for the purposes of the audit of the accounts of the County Associations, for accountants of both classes, as he had said, possessed the confidence of the public, and their audit would be free from any taint of War Office influent e or interference Their audit would be accepted by the County Associations and the public as in every respect complete. Finally, on many occasions during the
560
Debate he had heard quoted the famous verse from the Bible—
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
It was indeed a beautiful passage, but not one of the Members who had quoted it had noticed that these things were to happen in the last days, and he hoped that they had not approached the last days of the British Empire. He hoped and believed that they would make every necessary provision to safeguard that Empire in the interests of civilisation and progress and everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite rightly valued. He believed that among the things which would tend to preserve and carry on our Empire with its great civilising and peaceful influence was the training of our young people to defend their country, and to regard that as their most sacred duty. In spite of what they had heard that night, he believed that nearly every Member of the House, and the vast majority of the electors outside, really regarded the defence of their country as one of their greatest duties and privileges, and would not only be willing but anxious to see their children begin betimes to qualify for that duty. He had quoted the opinions of foreign countries and also of the Colonies, he had selected the opinions of the most democratic nations, and he had shown that if the example of our Colonies was fit to be followed by us in other matters it was fit to be followed also in regard to this question. For his part, he looked on the subject from no narrow point of view, but from the point of view of the citizen of a great Empire, which every son should learn, according to his lights, to defend.
*MR. COURTHOPEsaid he cordially agreed with what the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had said about the training of cadets, and he believed most hon. Members also thought that it was a good thing that our youth should be trained to defend the country. He did not wish, however,. to dwell on that point, but he wanted to refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In alluding to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon and of the right

561
hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, the Secretary of State for War had said he was in a. quandary between the two, the first of whom said that his own scheme had been murdered by the Secretary of State for War, while the latter said the same scheme had never been developed; and the Secretary of State for War added that he thought he had found a drowned baby, and that he had decently interred it. He thought all throe were right. He submitted that the two speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were consistent, and he would remind the Minister for War that he had drowned the baby first, an I had then picked it out of the water and given it a decent burial. It was perfectly true that the proposals of the right hon. Member for Croydon were never developed, and that they were murdered by the Secretary of State for War. He for one sincerely regretted that the plan of the late Secretary of State was not given a longer trial. Still, it was of no use crying over spilt milk. They had been discussing for the last few weeks what substitute to put into the cradle of the drowned baby, and he thought that that which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward had much to commend it. When it was first introduced he took the opportunity of disagreeing with one or two severe critics of the scheme. The greatest flaw in the scheme was, in his opinion, the Bill which was before them. To his mind the Bill was a the roughly bad one. The debates of the last few weeks had really not affected the general scheme or the present situation. They had made a bad Bill less bad, and some of its worst features had gone. The Militia had been saved, and although the right hon. Gentleman had assured them that there were only going to be two lines he thought the Militia would form an intermediate line, and that was a source of great satisfaction. Whether fifteen days training would be found sufficient was a matter of doubt. As for the Yeomanry, it had been given some years of grace, and the probability was that the scheme would be very much modified or entirely changed by the time that force came under its provisions. The Bill had now been whittled down to this: the Volunteers were going to change their name; they would sign on for four years instead of three, and they would "enlist" instead
562
of "enrol." These were the only changes which, in practice, the Hill would make. He heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers upon the fact that it had been whittled down with such good feeling all through the debates. There were, however, one or two points of detail to which he wished to refer. Several hon. Members had made an attack upon the Bill on account of the provisions for enforcing discipline, apparently thinking that no discipline was necessary. That was perfectly ridiculous, because it was impossible to maintain any military or naval force without discipline, and the discipline set up by the Bill was no more severe than that to which the Auxiliary Forces were now subject. Discipline they must have, and he had no fault to find with the Bill on that score. Then i there was the extraordinary cry which had been raised about the rampant militarism of the Bill, and he wished to protest against the ridiculous action of these who supported that cry. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle seemed to suggest that they should be a nation of shopkeepers and nothing else. He forgot that shops could be at-i tacked and raided. In the past they had proved themselves well able to defend their shops, and they intended to j continue to train themselves so that they could do so again if the emergency arose. If to be able to defend themselves and develop self-restraint and discipline was militarism and jingoism, all he could say was that jingoism was a very good thing. It was a good thing for every country that men should feel intense patriotism, and be ready to jump to their feet and uncover their heads when they hoard the national anthem. It was that kind of patriotism which had caused many heroes in the past to sacrifice their lives on behalf of their country. They ought to do all they could to encourage such feelings, and one means was by training to arms the boys in the schools, and that was why he advocated it. The training to arms and the discipline of cadet corps had a good effect on the physique and the general education of boys. He had the privilege last week of going through a field-day with the Volunteers, and he saw some of the good work which was being done by the boys of the cadet corps belonging to

563
Eastbourne College. These boys had enjoyed an enormous advantage since the cadet corps was formed. They were as fine a set of boys as one could wish to see, well disciplined, well set up and of good physique, and this was a good instance of the undoubted advantages which they might expect if military training and the use of the rifle were encouraged instead of discouraged in the schools.
MR. CARLILEsaid that these who desired to criticise the Bill were placed in a difficulty. On the one hand they found themselves disposed to criticise, and on the other hand they desired wholeheartedly that if the scheme passed it should be a thorough success. There was no desire in any part of the House to obtain any Party advantage by criticising its provisions. With regard to the position of the commanding officer they had always felt that it was a strong, influential, and responsible one, but the tendency of some of the provisions of the Bill was to lessen hiss responsibility and weaken his authority, and some of them feared that in consequence there would be a danger of losing the excellent staff of commanding officers which the Auxiliary Forces at present possessed. To relieve commanding officers of responsibilities by placing them upon the County Associations was, he felt sure, an extremely dangerous experiment. Commanding officers, he noticed, were to be relieved of the responsibility of providing rifle ranges. There was no more difficult question to deal with than that. It once fell to his lot to see General Kelly-Kenny on the subject of rifle ranges, and he said, "You must not look to the War Office for any help; do it yourselves." General Kelly-Kenny further told him that he had himself for seven years been trying to obtain a range in the district of Leicester for the Regular Army, but he was as far off obtaining it as over. It was now proposed to relieve commanding officers of the necessity of providing ranges, and no doubt many of them would be glad to be relieved of that responsibility. He failed to see how the County Associations were going to help in the matter, because on that body there would be a considerable number of the landowners of the county concerned. Every
564
one of them would, no doubt, be extremely anxious that ranges should be provided, but they would want them erected upon somebody else's land. These who had tried to get rifle ranges without compulsory powers knew how difficult the work was. If the County Associations could help in that matter, he was sure that everyone interested in the Auxiliary Forces would be delighted, but he failed to see how they could help. He was sure no one would want a range on his own land, and though the necessity might be very great in the interest of the Reserve Forces, he would wish to have it somewhere else. Another difficulty would arise in connection with the proposal to substitute for the commanding officer some casual officer specified as the "prescribed officer." That would tend to interfere with the position, dignity, and responsibility of the commanding officers. A still greater difficulty was that in regard to the penal clauses. He feared these clauses, and believed that they would seriously hinder recruiting. He would rather that the right hon. Gentleman had in some way appealed to the power of sentiment instead of that form of coercion. Sentiment was the greatest force in the world. It certainly was the force which lay behind the loyal and self-denying labours of every individual member of the Auxiliary Forces. The penal clauses were to be sot in motion if a man failed to attend a certain number of drills. He believed if men failed to attend it was from some very good cause; he had found them putting themselves to great inconvenience in order not to miss drills. He was glad the Militia was to be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to keep every Militiaman he could. He seemed inclined to disband some of the battalions. Why should he not with the magnetism that lay about his own personality endeavour to arouse the spirit of the Militia and fill up the cadres which wore now deficient? These who had the interests of the Yeomanry at heart thought it was a pity that that force was once more to be unsettled. He urged that the right hon. Gentleman should make an effort to put it on a sound and permanent footing instead of holding over its head the prospect of dissolution at the end of three years.

565
The Yeomanry would no doubt lose a great number of its members if the pecuniary arrangements proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were to be enforced at the end of three years. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to increase their pay there would have been no objection, but the proposed reduction could only have a detrimental effect. These who had noticed the work of the Yeomanry since the war knew how greatly the force had improved, and he thought its members should not be discouraged by the prospect of reduced pay. No explanation had been given of why it was proposed that the Volunteers should go over to Ireland to serve. That seemed to him to be a gratuitous extension of the responsibility placed upon the Volunteers. He rejoiced that at last the Volunteers wore to have divisional commanders. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the selection of the divisional commanders would devolve upon him very great responsibility, so much depended upon the character of the men. During the South African War most glowing reports were received from commanding officers as to the smartness and efficiency of the men sent out from the Volunteer battalions, but as soon as the war was over and the Volunteers had returned to their homes, even the commanding officers who had praised them became fault, finders and adversely criticised the work they had done. To place such men in the position of commanders of divisions would be fatal to the welfare of the force. If the right hon. Gentleman selected men who were in full sympathy with the Volunteers, the divisional commands would be a great strength to the Auxiliary Forces. On the other hand, if he selected men who were out of sympathy with the Volunteers—even some men who in their younger days had been adjutants of Volunteer corps—[Cries of "Oh!"] —some adjutants were excellent, and others absolutely useless, and if some of the men who had been useless as adjutants were placed in command of divisions, it would be fatal to the efficiency of the force. He urged that the Territorial Force should have a separate department at the War Office, and that the papers and applications of the force should not filter through the general-officer commanding a district to be dealt with, perhaps, by a sub-department of a
566
department at the War Office. He supported the appeal of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield that there should be on the Army Council a direct representative of the Territorial Army. If that request was not granted he was afraid that the refusal could only arise from some feeling of petty jealousy inconsistent with the desire for popular representation which existed in these days. He hoped that the Bill would be a success, but he could not hide from himself the thought at the back of his mind that if the Bill failed it would become necessary to do what many of them, far from regretting, would most cordially welcome, viz., to call on every citizen of full age to qualify himself for the defence of the country. He would like to boar testimony to the increased interest in the Territorial Forces Bill shown that afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman was making his important statement to the House. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he was supported by only twenty-seven Members opposite, but that day when they had come to the Third Beading he had counted on one occasion as large a number of Ministerial supporters as twenty-nine.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERcongratulated the Secretary of State on having reached that stage of the Bill, which he looked upon as, on the whole, a distinct improvement on the existing state of things. Hitherto it had been very difficult to raise men suddenly for home defence; but under this scheme there would be no difficulty in getting the men, and the Territorial Army would be liable to immediate embodiment. There would be plenty of time, when the expeditionary force consisting of Regulars wore sent abroad, to get the half-trained men in the Territorial Army properly trained and capable of supplying drafts to the Army at the front There was formerly a difficulty in getting officers; he was afraid that there would be still some difficulty, and he suggested that young men might be trained as officers in cadet corps. He hoped that there would be in future a larger supply of men trained in the third battalions or in some other way who would be able to take up their position at the front in time of war. In the Militia regiment in which

567
he served all the subalterns were taken away twice to supply the deficiencies in the Regular Army. He hoped that some method would be devised to get young men educated so as to be drafted into the Regular Army as officers. He knew that young men went into the Militia looking forward to the time when they could ride about as field officers, but if that chance was taken away from them the number of officers available for the Regular Army would be reduced. The Capitation Grant hitherto amounted to £300,000, and under the new scheme the sum was slightly increased; but then every man in case of national emergency was to be available for service. Even if the Territorial Army was to be reduced by one-third there would still be between 100,000 and 200,000 men to be relied upon. Therefore he maintained that the scheme deserved the support of every patriotic man in the country, and that they should all work together in making it a success. He hoped it would never be urged when the War Office wanted to make a slight alteration in the scheme that such alteration had never been discussed in or approved by the House of Commons. It would be a great day when the scheme was carried out, and he believed that, even if it were only partially successful, it would be of great advantage to the country.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wished to congratulate the Secretary of State for War and the House on the near-conclusion of their labours. He had listened to many speeches during the day, and most of them had led him to the belief that it was his duty to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, although, had the right hon. Gentleman not accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Militia, he would have voted against it. He wished to ask whether, when a Militia officer who happened to be a Member of the House of Commons was seconded, he would be put under the same regulations as a member of the Regular Army? He also asked whether the third and fourth battalions were to be trained comparatively en bloc, or in driblets. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance on that point. What would be the position of a Militia officer
568
who did not accept the new liabilities, the man having previously entered into a contract to serve for six years? As he had said, most of the speeches that day had led him to the belief that it was his duty to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. Worse reasons for opposing a Bill he had never heard. His hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield was inclined to vote against it chiefly because he disliked general officers. He did not agree with him in that, and he did not think there should be that suspicion of general officers. At all events it furnished no reason for voting against the Bill. Then he came to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and his argument led him in exactly the contrary direction to that in which the hon. Gentleman would like him to go. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle announced that he was going to vote against the Bill because it was going to bring about a horrible addition to the militarism of the country, and inasmuch as he represented the poorer classes of the community, the hon. Member said he must vote against the Bill as it increased the possibility of military expenditure. The interests of the poor of all sorts, conditions, and classes, were most essentially concerned in the preservation of the country and the rescue of the Empire from destruction. Yet the hon. Gentleman said he was willing to break down the rampart between the Empire and destruction because he feared the expense. The hon. Member's argument did not appear to him sound either from the personal, the national, or the class point of view, because the wage earner and the poor man wore most concerned with the success of the country, and with such a condition of things as assured to them no break in their labour, whatever it might be. Therefore the speech of the hon. Member took him in the direction, from another point of view, of voting for the Bill. Then again the speech of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras inclined him to vote for the Bill, because the hon. Member had said that for a Radical Minister to bring in such a Bill was a disgrace to Radicalism and democracy, and remarks of that kind inclined him to come over to the right hon. Gentle- man's side and bolster him up against the attacks levelled at him, He thought that

569
whether they were democratic, Liberal, Radical, Conservative, or aristocratic, such considerations should not enter into the question of the maintenance of a sufficient armed force to protect the interests of the country. Another hon. Member had said that they ought not to vote for the Bill because the right hon. Gentleman belonged to a Government which had insulted Ireland by not introducing a sufficiently strong Home Rule Bill. Such a consideration did not affect him when dealing with matters affecting the Army, and he was glad to remember, and the country ought to be glad to remember, that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues which ware advanced in order to induce their countrymen not to join the British Army had had no effect whatever, especially during the war in South Africa. He hoped the loyalty of the Irish people would long be proof against the arguments which were then advanced. For himself he had to consider what were the arguments for and against the Bill. He had heard during the debate rather more than he cared to hear about the special interests of the Militia, the Volunteers, and the Yeomanry. As one who considered that; the whole of the Auxiliary Forces were worthless unless they were devoted to the reinforcement and support of the Regular Army, he had been somewhat wearied by the claims that this or that particular section of the Auxiliary Forces should be released from this or that obligation. The only way to consider any scheme of Army reform was to ask whether it would weaken or strengthen the whole fighting force of the country, not when it was wanted to wage a petty war, but in the case of a really great war. That was the sole test which in his judgment they had to apply. If the right hon. Gentleman's Bill did increase the fighting strength of the country inasmuch as it increased the fighting line, however much he disliked certain provisions of it he would have to support it. The question was whether the Bill fulfilled the test which throughout the debates he had tried to apply to it. It certainly would provide a stronger and bigger expeditionary force, and he thought that that was perfectly right. The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that perforce he must have such-and-such a force in this country and that by his scheme he would be enabled to
570
utilise them effectively. In other words, he said he must be able to send out a fighting force and that he was bound to keep them in hand. With that every soldier must be in accord. In the first place, it was well that there should be a large expeditionary force in view of possible emergencies. In the second place, it was sound economy, if they had these men in the country, that they should be administered in such a way that they would be available if required. He was not quite so satisfied with regard to the arrangements for making the Territorial Force, the supplementary troops, effective. He had never pretended to be satisfied with the amount of training provided for that force, and he hoped before the debate closed the right hon. Gentleman would frankly admit that he did not claim that it would have the result of making these men absolutely effective, but that it was all the training that he believed the country would allow him to give them. The country would be more satisfied and would believe in and help the right hon. Gentleman more if he said that he understood the trade, personal, and local difficulties of the men who might join the force, and that, although they were the best material in the world, the country must understand that the training he proposed to give them was not sufficient to make them effective, and that he relied on the country to make their transition into effective men easier. The training that the Militia was to receive in the future would not be effective. The twenty-eight days training that a Militiaman went through in the past turned him into an effective soldier for the ensuing twelve months, but six months training on joining and fifteen days a year afterwards would not make an effective soldier. He also thought that the great mass of the men would prefer the twenty-eight days training to the fifteen. It was often a financial advantage to them in times of short employment to come out for twenty-eight days, and many would feel that they were being treated hardly if they were deprived of the fifteen days good pay, good food, and good clothing which stood between them and worse conditions of life. He doubted whether that part of the scheme would appeal to the men whom the right hon. Gentleman desired to retain in the third and fourth battalions and to make efficient soldiers

571
in times of need. Then there was the question of expenditure. Let the right hon. Gentleman be as frank to the country upon that as he wished him to be on the matter of effective training. The scheme might temporarily be economical, but in the end it would be extravagant. The country had been be-wildered and muddled by the extravagant suggestions made on the platforms as to the economies the Government were going to effect in the Army and the Navy. At election times masses of people were willing to listen to almost anything. But many of these who were tickled by that cry of "Economy," if they thought the economies practised were not compatible with making effective provision for the defence of the Empire would soon rescind their votes. On the question of expenditure he could not support the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the expectations as to economy would be realised; on the contrary, he ventured to prophesy that there would be an increase in the Estimates in proportion as the scheme was made effective. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman would realise that his proposals in regard to artillery and to cavalry were not going to make the scheme effective unless he provided a cavalry worthy of the name and an artillery that he could put into the field to meet the artillery of foreign nations. In regard to the County Associations, he adhered, in spite of the arguments he had heard that night, to his belief that to hand over to them the right to interfere with anything pertaining to recruiting, or the raising of the forces in the different localities, was an absolute and pernicious mistake. He was sure that the Associations ought not to be involved in anything of the sort. They ought not to have anything to do with the financing of the corps and regiments, or with the battalions that were to be raised. But they could be used to perform the useful work of looking after the soldiers when they returned from active service, and also in seeing to the provision to be made for the families of soldiers while at war. They could also assist in providing ranges and manœuvring grounds. But he would not allow the County Associations to touch with their little finger the question of recruiting or finance, or the raising of the new forces proposed. Another ques-
572
tion which had been discussed was that relating to the position of the commanding officer. He could not understand why they should have that obnoxious word "prescribed" officer, which was enough in itself to prevent a man from joining. It would be like serving a village apothecary; it was a nasty word, suggesting prescriptions and the compounding of drugs, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it as soon as he could, and not offend the nostrils of the soldier by telling him that he was to serve under a prescribed officer on the basis of a medical prescription. The right hon. Gentleman could easily secure a better word to carry out his idea. If they wanted a regiment properly administered, with the maintenance of efficiency and local interest, they must keep on the commanding officer. It would be absolutely impossible to maintain the proper standard of efficiency if they took away from the commanding officer duties which he ought to perform, and the withholding of which would affect his influence in the regiment, especially when it was seen that they were discharged by a "prescribed officer." Another point related to the Yeomanry. That was a matter on which the Secretary of State was near a breakdown, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself saw it. The fourteen squadrons nominally Yeomen were to be the divisional cavalry. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the proposal was not going to work, and that the squadrons so raised would not be efficient. They must recollect that, of all branches of our fighting forces, they could not produce a cheap cavalry. They must have them not only properly officered and mounted, but equipped and ready in the highest possible degree of excellence, and they must be trained so well that every individual horse and trooper knew his work and his place and could be relied upon properly to discharge his duties. He need not talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the disastrous results which might flow from having inefficient divisional cavalry. A blunder by an infantry battalion might be quickly rectified, but a blunder by inefficient divisional cavalry would not be so easily remedied. He had endeavoured to criticise these portions of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme honestly and straightforwardly, but at the same time he recognised that

573
there was much in the scheme which appealed to him. Seeing that he stood squarely against the proposals of the hon. Members for the Barnard Castle Division and East St. Pancras, he. thought the Secretary of State for War should not be subjected to further opposition from that side of the House; although they did not altogether agree with, they did not altogether disagree with him. The Bill was going to another place, where it would not have the supreme advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's personal guidance. But he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would carefully instruct the Under-Secretary of State in the other House, so that it would be possible for that assembly to wipe out these blemishes which, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to retain in the Bill. Unless these mistakes were eliminated, he would not be able to give the right hon. Gentleman that support which personally he would like to be able to give him.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that many of them had hoped that they might have general unanimity in support of the Bill, however much it might be amended for that purpose. After the debate chat day it appeared that the Bill would have that general support, except from four quarters—the Member for the Forest of Dean, the late Secretary for War, the Irish Members, and the Labour Party. He hoped that some of them would reconsider their decision. For once he differed from the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it was impossible to make that adequate reduction in the Army which many of them wished to see effected unless they abandoned the linked battalion system, but he did not think they could do that without putting something else in its place. They proposed by the Bill to create a Territorial Army complete in all its parts, so that when they asked for a reduction in the Regular Army they could not be met with the argument that the country would not be safe if such a reduction were made. He believed it was only by creating an effective Territorial Army that we could get rid of the linked battalion system as now understood. He appealed to these who had announced
574
their intention of opposing the Bill to reconsider their position. He appealed especially to the Labour Party. They had condemned the Bill because they thought it undemocratic, and because they believed it would be extravagant and increase the Regular Army. Hon. Members from Ireland would remember that an Irishman once said that the only guarantee for the liberty of a country was that its people should be trained to arras to prevent their being tyrannised over and ground down by a Regular Army. The position of the Irish Members was that when the Bill was introduced they were expecting a measure of self-government for Ireland, but as they were denied that great democratic measure they were opposed to this Bill. That seemed to be the argument of the hon. Member for Galway. How could the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division reconcile his position with that of the hon. Member for Galway? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had made a speech of the greatest skill and full of knowledge acquired during a life study of the subject. He had been Secretary of State for War, and everybody would be ready to give him credit for the patriotism and energy he had applied to the problem. He had condemned and cursed the scheme with bell, book, and candle because it relied on the free will of the people instead of on a Regular Army, and had contended that if their sole object was to overwhelm the enemy they must have binding obligations from the whole of the population to serve against that enemy. That was what the right hon. Member for Croydon would do. The right hon. Gentleman had often stated that the wisest course was to spend nearly all the money we could afford only on such persons as entered into binding obligations to serve in any part of the Empire; but there were some in the House who controverted that view in spite of military dangers, because they held that the principle of liberty was better even than the prospect of national safety. He had stated that proposition in its extreme form purposely in order to conclude in the shortest possible time. He believed that liberty was even better than the prospect of national safety obtained by forcing a binding engagement to serve in any part of the Empire upon

575
every man they could get by hook or by crook. That was the real issue which stood before them. The right hon. Member for Croydon was right in the way in which he had put his case. The real issue was whether they should continue to rely on the free-will offerings of the people or sacrifice the principle of liberty of which he had spoken. For himself he believed it was better to adopt the principle of the Bill and to rely on the free-will offerings of a free people who would choose for themselves whether they would or would not wage a war. It might be dangerous, but it was a danger we had confronted for a hundred years, and we had survived while many other nations had gone under.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether the Empire had not been won by an Army composed on the lines the hon. Member denounced.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that only on three occasions had England endeavoured to wage a war on the principle of compulsory engagement. On every one of these occasions the conscripts had covered themselves with disgrace, while at the same time soldiers from our country serving voluntarily in foreign countries had covered this country with glory. The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division who had stated that he and his friends had not attended many of the debates on the Bill, had said he was an amateur, but no one would have thought so from his speech. Who was likely to be right as to the general trend of the Bill—the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division and these who were associated with him, or the right hon. Member for Croydon, who had had many years close and intimate connection with the Army, and who had risen to be the Secretary of State for War? He himself believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was right in the view that the Bill was, if anything, too democratic. He did not wish to comment on the Bill in any controversial spirit. For the last ten years there had been scheme after scheme wrecked by Party malice in which, he dared say, he had borne a part and for which he humbly begged the pardon of the House if it was possible to do so now. But it was true that if they were to make anything of the armed forces of the country they must combine, they must
576
pull together, and, even at the last moment, he would appeal to the Labour Members and ask them whether they could not unite with them in giving a chance to this scheme, which he earnestly hoped might be passed that night.
MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs)said it fell to his lot to be closured when the Bill was introduced. At that time he deprecated the abolition of ten battalions, he deplored the intention of the Government to abolish the Militia, he was sorry that the Yeomanry were to be discouraged, and he was doubtful of the new experiment to which the Volunteers wore to be subjected. Standing there that night he rejoiced to find that most of these spectres had been wafted away. He was animated by no Party malice whatever, and he found no difficulty in giving the right hon. Gentleman his warm support for what it was worth. He was struck by the remarks made by one of the members of the Labour Party, who seemed to think that militarism was an accursed thing. He would recall what was said by another member of the Labour Party, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. There was a great divergence in their views. One was terrified lest militarism should come into this country, and the other said that if there was any hint of invasion a million bayonets would flash in the sun. Were the very proper idea of the hon. Gentleman carried out there would be militarism to the bitter end. When the country was invaded let them all roll up and do what they could to resist the invader. [Cheers.] The cheers resounding throughout the House showed that hon. Members were taking his words in the right spirit. Militarism was only another expression for patriotism. He had never shut his eyes to the fact that we as a nation were not well prepared for war. If our arrangements were contrasted with these of continental nations, it would be found that we were about equal to Belgium. He regretted very much that there was no intention to train the youth of the country in gymnastics and the use of the rifle. However distasteful it might be to some hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway, he thought it would not do the lads any harm. He had always been opposed to conscription, and maintained that if young men were trained to

577
the use of the rifle it would do more to get rid of the danger of conscription than anything else. He gave his hearty support to the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 246.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crosfield, A. H.

Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Agnew, George William

Dalrymple, Viscount

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jackson, R. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dickinson, W.H.(St, Pancras, N.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Astbury, John Meir

Dickson-Poynder, SirJohn P.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones,william (Carnarvonshire

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

Kearley, Hudson E.

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kekewich, Sir George

Baring, Capt.Hn.G. (Winchester

Dunne, Major E.Martin (Walsall

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Barker, John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

King. Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Barlow, Jn. Emmott(Somerset

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Laidlaw, Robert

Barnard, E. B.

Elibank, Master of

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Erskine, David C.

Lambert, George

Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Beale, W. P.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Beauchamp, E.

Evans, Samuel T.

Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Beck, A. Cecil

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lehmann, R. C.

Boll, Richard

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Levy, Maurice

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Ferens, T. R.

Lough, Thomas

Bennett, E. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lupton, Arnold

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bertram, Julius

Findlay, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lynch, H. B.

Bethell,T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Crae, George

Brace, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Laren, H.D. (Stafford, W.)

Brodie, H. C.

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

M'Micking, Major G.

Brooke, Stopford

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mallet, Charles E.

Brunner, RtHn SirJ.T(Cheshire)

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bryce, J. Annan

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r).

Massie, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Walter

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cairns, Thomas

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cameron, Robert

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montagu, E. S.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Montgomery, H. G.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Morrell, Philip

Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.

Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Murray, James

Clark. George Smith (Belfast,N.

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Cleland, J. W.

Hills, J. W.

Napier, T. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E.Grinst'd)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholls, George

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Crooks, William

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Philipps,Coi.Ivor(S'thampton)

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Seely, Major J. B.

Vivian, Henry

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walker, H. Def. (Leicester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Walters, John Tudor

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waring, Walter

Price.RobertJohn (Norfolk.E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, JohnCatheart( Orkney)

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Watt, Henry A.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Weir, James Galloway

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitbread, Howard

Rees, J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

White, George (Norfolk)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Renton, Major Leslie

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitehead, Rowland

Rickett, J. Compton

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wiles, Thomas

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

Williamson, A.

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rowlands, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Russell, T. W.

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

Winfrey, R.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Tillett, Louis John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tomkinson, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Torrance, Sir A. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Toulmin, George

Sears, J. E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Seaverns, J. H.

Verney, F. W.

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

Ambrose, Robert

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Malley, William

Ashley, W. W.

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Joyce, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Kelley, George D.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rawlinson. JohnFrederick Peel

Bowerwan, C. W.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

Byles, William Pollard

Lundon, W.

Seddon, J.

Clough. William

Macpherson, J. T.

Shackleton. David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Snowden, P.

Cooper, G. J.

Mac Veigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Summerbell, T.

Cremer, William Randal

M'Kean, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Delany, William

M'Killop, W.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Meagher, Michael

Walker, C'ol.W.H.( Lancashire)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Mooney, J. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Gill, A. H.

Murphy, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westheughton)

Glover, Thomas

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Halpin, J.

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. George Roberts.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Hodge, John

O'Connor, John(Kildare,N.)

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL [LORDS].
As amended, considered; road the third time, and passed.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Com-
mittee) considered; read the third time, and passed.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee); considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Adjourned at eleven minutes after Eleven o'clock.