Commons Sitting of 21 March 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill; Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments. Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).
MR. D. A. THOMASreported from the Committee on Group 1 of the Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Wednesday, the 17th April, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the jurisdiction of the Company of Proprietors of the Lower Navigation of the River Medway; and for other purposes." [Medway Lower Navigation Bill [Lords].
Galwey's Divorce Bill [Lords]. That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Galwey's Divorce Bill, together with the documents deposited in the case, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
Medway Lower Navigation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Alfreton; Cadzow; Cresswell; Cwmboan; Denby Grange; Derbyshire; Derbyshire Silkstone; East Huntslet; Garforth; Glasswell; Glencraig; Hepthorne Lane; Hickleton Main; Holbrook; Kenmuir; Lane Head; Leeds; Newmarket Haig Moor; Old Avenue; Park Hill; Park House; Pilsley; Rothwell; Williamthorpe; Woodside; and, Woodthorpe; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1894.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS.
  Petition from Worthing, for purchase by the State; to lie upon the Table.

  ROYAL HIBERNIAN ACADEMY.
  Seven Petitions from Artists, Art Teachers, Students, and others, resident
  820
  in Ireland, against removal of academic functions; to lie upon the Table.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bootle; Brighton; Exeter; Halifax (two); London, York, and other places; Nottingham; Reigate; Rochester; Southampton (two); Sunderland; Town and County Councils and others; and, West Bromwich; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the Crops and numbers of Live Stock for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Northumberland altering certain Polling Districts in the Tyneside and Wansbeck Parliamentary Divisions of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Borough of Jarrow, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of Shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Dorothy Pearson, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the East End Refuge, London, N. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY WORKS).
  Copy presented, of Approximate Estimate of Expenditure under the Military Works Acts of 1897, 1899, 1901, and

  821
  1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Oriel College, Oxford, on the 11th October 1906 (and sealed on the 29th November 1906) amending Statute VI., Clause 5, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of University College, Oxford, on the 1st December 1906 (and sealed on the 7th December 1906), amending Statute III., Clause 11, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 89.]
  CONGESTION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Third Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence taken in London, 3rd to 20th November 1906 and Documents relating thereto) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Reports of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the Numbers and Salaries of Teachers in Voluntary Schools in England and Wales for year ended 31st July 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS (NON-PAYMENT OF RATES).
  Address for "Return showing, for the year 1906, (1) the number of persons summoned in each Metropolitan Borough for Non-payment of Rates; (2) the
  822
  number of distraint warrants issued in each Borough; (3) the number of committals in each Borough in default of Payment of Rates."—(Mr. Weir.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Ship Inn, Pett.
  MR. GIBB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the magistrates have just granted the transfer of a licence from the present Ship Inn, about two miles from Pett village, near Hastings, to a new house about to be built about half-a-mile from Pett village; that Pett village has not at present a public-house in or near it and does not want one; that the parish councils concerned have passed unanimous resolutions against the transfer; that memorials, signed by an overwhelming majority of the householders, were presented at the Court in opposition to the transfer; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the people of Pett having a public-house thrust upon them against their will.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have obtained a Report on the case from the clerk to the magistrates who dealt with it, and find that the facts on one side are substantially as stated in the Question. The case appears to have been carefully dealt with by the magistrates, who heard what was to be said on both sides. The decision is entirely in their discretion, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter; but I may point out that the grant of the removal of the licence does not take effect unless confirmed by the East Sussex Quarter Sessions, and that it is open to anyone who opposed the grant to oppose also the confirmation.

  Posseckstown Evicted Tenant.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Miss Margaret M. Clarke, of Posseckstown, Notter, county Meath, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in her farm; and, if so, if the application has been dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for reinstatement from Miss Clarke.

  Greenwich Hospital Funds.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of pensioners from the Seamen Pensioners Reserve who now receive the age pensions from Greenwich Hospital funds, their present average age, and the total amount paid to such pensioners during the year 1906; also similar information with reference to pensioners from the Royal Fleet Reserve, and, if none, then when the first payment out of the funds mentioned will be payable; whether all the pensioners in both the reserves mentioned are actually paid the agepensions from Greenwich funds on attaining fifty-five years, whilst the average age of others eligible outside such reserves was last year stated to be sixty-three years; and whether he will say under what circumstances or by what authority the pensioners from the Seamen Pensioners Reserve and of the Royal Fleet Reserve are entitled to and actually receive their pensions on attaining fifty-five, whilst the others stated do not.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The number of pensioners belonging to the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve now in receipt of age pensions from Greenwich Hospital funds is approximately 1,850, their average age being sixty-one, and the total amount paid in respect of these pensions being £16,630. Pensioners belonging to the Royal Fleet Reserve will not be paid Greenwich Hospital age pensions on reaching the age of fifty-five, but their applications, when received, will be considered side by side with other applications, and they will be awarded pensions at such ages as the funds available may permit. The age pension is paid to pensioners from the Seamen Pensioners Reserve under authority of Act 16 and 17 Vic., cap. 73, and Order in Council of the 29th November 1870, as modified by the King's Regulations, Article 1956a, section c, issued under authority of Order in Council.

  Motor Omnibus Breakdowns.
  MR. BURNYEAT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the frequent breakdown of motor omnibuses passing along congested routes such as the Strand and Fleet Street; and whether, seeing that the consequent obstruction of the highway is of serious import to all classes of traffic, he proposes to enforce more stringently any existing regulations, or to make fresh regulations dealing with the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Motor-omnibuses, like all other forms of motor vehicles, occasionally break down, and no regulations can prevent this. The companies concerned endeavour to minimise the resulting obstruction by employing travelling engineers to remedy defects expeditiously. The omnibuses are carefully inspected before being licensed, and there is no reason to believe that fresh regulations are called for. As machinery improves, breakdowns are likely to become less frequent.

  Lisnagea Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Doherty, Lisnagea, Kilnagross, with reference to his holding on the Vaugh estate, in county Leitrim, and if any action will be taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Drainage of the Barrow.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, paragraph 13, page 9, in which it is stated that smaller sums than those hitherto estimated might, us in the case of the River Barrow, be expended with advantage, provided that they were

  825
  devoted to the purposes of specific works forming part of a general and comprehensive scheme of improvement; whether he is aware that the county councils and the representatives of the counties injured by the flooding from the Barrow have agreed on a scheme, pending legislation and a scheme of thorough drainage, which would considerably reduce the floods and the evils resulting there from; and whether, seeing that Sir Alexander Binnie, Chairman of the Drainage Commission, stated that the works proposed under the scheme were of a beneficial and permanent character, one of the first works that should be done under any general scheme of drainage, he will favourably consider this scheme and provide the money to carry it out.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, dated 23rd February, 1907, paragraph 13, page 9, referring to the River Barrow, endorsing the observations of the All port Commission that the upper portion of the catchment area of the River Barrow extending down to Athy contains an area of 408,000 acres, of which 46,000 acres are flooded or injured by floods, that the basin of the Upper Barrow suffers more from floods than any other part of Ireland, as shown in the figures given above, the proportion which the lands flooded and injured bear to the whole catchment area is exceptionally high, the length of time during which large tracks are covered with water is often considerable, and there are several low-lying towns within the limits of the river basin which suffer directly and indirectly from inundations; that altogether the condition of the district may be described as deplorable; and seeing that this condition has existed for fifty years and that the flooded area and injured lands now exceed 60,000 acres, what steps he proposes to take to provide a remedy for this evil which has caused loss of life and annual destruction of property.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The evidence taken by the Arterial Drainage Commission has not yet been presented to
  826
  Parliament. It is, I am informed, in course of being printed, and will be ready in a week or two. When the evidence has been received it will be necessary to consider the recommendations of the Commission as a whole in order to decide what legislation may be necessary, and this will obviously take some time. Meanwhile it would not be possible or desirable to consider the question of undertaking drainage schemes in particular cases.

  Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of persons afforded constant protection and special protection respectively by police patrols in each county in Ireland on the 1st instant, and the number of police engaged on these duties respectively; and what was the number of other persons, not included in this list, to whom similar protection was afforded during the period 1st January, 1906 to 29th February, 1907, but from whom protection was withdrawn because the necessity for it had ceased.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer to my Answer to the similar Question put by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 13th instant.† During the month of February, 1907, special police protection was withdrawn in two cases, viz.—one in King's County and one in county Kerry. With this addition the former answer applies to the present Question.

  Agrarian Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of agrarian outrages in Ireland in the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and the months of January and February, 1907, under the following heads: total agrarian outrages, including threatening letters and excluding threatening letters; particular crimes under the following heads: homicides; firing at the person; assault with intent to murder; assault
  † See Cols. 10–12.

  827
  endangering life; incendiary fires; killing, cutting, or maiming cattle; attacking houses; and firing into dwellings.

  Nature of Outrage.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  Jan. 1907.

  Feb. 1907.

  Homicide

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Firing at the person

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Assault with intent to murder

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assault endangering life

  3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Incendiary fire

  41

  42

  28

  42

  47

  2

  1

  Killing, cutting, or maiming cattle

  22

  9

  11

  14

  11

  —

  —

  Attacking houses

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Firing into dwellings

  4

  6

  12

  9

  9

  1

  1

  Other offences (exclusive of threatening letters)

  46

  49

  48

  65

  57

  4

  5

  Total (exclusive of threatening letters)

  121

  112

  101

  136

  129

  8

  7

  Threatening letters

  132

  83

  105

  143

  105

  8

  4

  Grand total (including threatening letters)

  253

  195

  206

  279

  234

  16

  11

  Boycotting in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of persons wholly boycotted in Ireland on the 1st instant; the number of persons partially boycotted on the same date, and the number of other persons affected by boycotting whose cases were recorded in the Returns made by the constabulary authorities, but which are not regarded as falling into the category of persons wholly or partially boycotted; and will he also define the classification followed by the authorities in recording cases of boycotting under each of these heads.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The following table gives the information asked for: —
  Constabulary informs me that on the 1st instant there were three cases under the head of wholly boycotted, and seven under that of partially boycotted. The number of cases in which persons were boycotted in a minor degree, or in which attempts were made to boycott, was seventy-three. Serious cases of boycotting are those in which the boycotted person's means of livelihood are affected, as by the refusal to sell provisions to him in local shops, the refusal of labourers to work for him, the refusal of neighbours to buy from or sell to him, and such like. When several such conditions prevail, and the person is gravely affected, the person is regarded as wholly boycotted. When the circumstances are not so grave, but the person

  829
  is still seriously affected, the case is regarded as one of partial boycotting. When the boycotting consists of petty isolated acts, as distinguished from organised or sustained boycotting, or when an attempt is made to boycott, but the effect is inappreciable, the case falls within the third category mentioned.

  Nairobi Railway—British East Africa.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the land one mile on each side of the railway line at Nairobi, in British East Africa, is Crown property.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The land in question was originally the property of the Crown, and, so far as the Secretary of State knows, no part of it has been alienated in freehold. The exact facts will be shown in the Return for which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has moved.

  Appointments.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  Total.

  Second Division clerks

  27

  53

  81

  161

  Excise assistants

  6

  11

  11

  28

  Customs assistants

  8

  11

  5

  24

  Customs port clerks

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  41

  77

  97

  215

  †The title "boy copyist" was changed to "boy clerks" in 1902.

  I understand that the numbers of boy clerks (or boy copyists) serving or superannuated, who were certificated as assistant clerks (abstractors) during the same years are as follows: —

  In 1904

  180

  In 1905

  246

  In 1906

  281

  Total

  707

  Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
  MR. PARKER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the number of boy clerks and boy copyists entered into the Civil Service during the years 1904, 1905, and 1906; also the number of boy clerks and boy copyists who, during those years, were appointed to situations in the Second Division, Excise and Customs.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I. The number of boy clerks†certificated by the Civil Service Commissioners during the years 1904 to 1906 are, I am informed, as follows: —

  In 1904

  986

  In 1905

  596

  In 1906

  923

  Total

  2,505

  II. The numbers of boy clerks (or boy copyists) whether serving or superannuated, who were certificated for the following appointments during the years 1904 to 1906 are as given below: —

  Registry of Deeds, Dublin.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the work of the Registry of Deeds, Dublin, has increased by 30 per cent. during the past six years, owing chiefly to negotiation under the Land Purchase Act; that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the existing staff due to the strain thus put upon them without any corresponding remuneration and to the

  831
  organisation of the office; and whether the Treasury will give the claims of the staff an early consideration.
  Mr. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware if a memorial from the staff of the Registry of Deeds, Dublin, was forwarded to the registrar for transmission to the Treasury on the 4th January, 1906, whether the transmission of the memorial has been delayed through the absence of the registrar, the assistant registrar not having authority to deal with the matter; and whether, in the event of the illness of the head of the department proving to be protracted, steps are to be taken to have this matter dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am aware that there has been a considerable increase in the work of the Registry of Deeds, but I have no reason to think that this increase has put any undue strain on the staff. I understand that the memorial referred to was forwarded to the Registrar for transmission to the Treasury on 4th January, 1907. The Registrar was at that date, and has since been, precluded by illness from attending to business. In the event of his illness proving to be protracted, and the memorial being forwarded to the Treasury by the Assistant Registrar, it will be taken into consideration.

  Clerks in Board of Works, Dublin.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will ask the Board of Works to explain the reason why all applications from Second Division clerks for the four increments on reaching £100 per annum have been ignored; and if the responsibility for this action rests with the Secretary, because the majority of the applicants are Roman Catholics.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that no assistant clerks, new class, in the Board of Works, Dublin, have yet been promoted to the Second Division, although there are at least four of that class elegible for such promotion by length of service and by the importance of the work performed by them; and will he ask the Board of Works why, when applications for promotion were
  832
  made and recommended some time ago, no replies were received.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). If the hon. Member will allow me I will reply to his Question for to-morrow at the same time. The grant of four increments to a Second Division clerk, and the promotion of an assistant clerk to the Second Division, are both under Order in Council confined to cases of exceptional merit. The Board of Works inform me that they have dealt personally with all applications, and have dealt with them on their merits, and without reference to, or knowledge of, the religion of the applicants. They are not aware of any case in which an application has been left without reply.

  National Physical Laboratory.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZ: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what are the exact terms of reference to the Treasury Committee recently appointed to inquire into the administration and conduct of the National Physical Laboratory.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). The Committee was appointed "to inquire generally into the work now performed at the National Physical Laboratory, with special reference to—(1) the character of the mechanical, physical, and chemical tests undertaken there; (2) the possibility of their interfering unduly with the business of other agencies; (3) the desirability of publishing the results of all such testing work; and to report (1) whether having regard to the industrial interests of the country generally and to those of private agencies, any change is desirable in the scope of the work of the laboratory; and (2) on what lines any further development of its business should proceed."
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZ: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Treasury Committee recently appointed to inquire into the administration and conduct of the National Physical Laboratory was appointed by the Treasury or by any body or society other than the Treasury; and, if so, by what body or society.
  SIR PHILIP MUNTZ: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any

  833
  of the members of the Treasury Committee recently appointed to inquire into the administration and conduct of the National Physical Laboratory were appointed after consultation with, and at the suggestion of, any person connected with the National Physical Laboratory, either as a member of the Committee of that body or of the staff of the National Physical Laboratory.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). I think the hon. Baronet will find an Answer to these two Questions in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing on the 7th instant.†

  Market Prices of Malting Barley.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give quantities and prices of malting barley sold during the months of October, November, and December, 1906, in the following markets, with the weight per bushel in each market, Norwich, Lincoln, Bury St. Edmund's, Berwick, Cambridge, Bishop's Stortford, Chelmsford, York and Darlington.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It is not possible for me to give the hon. Member the information he desires as to the quantities and prices of malting barley, inasmuch as the Returns received under the Corn Returns Act do not distinguish malting barley from barley used for other purposes. We are making inquiries as to the weight per bushel of the barley sold at Lincoln, Bury St. Edmund's, and Berwick, but at all the other markets named in the Question it is sold by weight or weighed measures at 448 lbs. to the quarter, or 56 lbs. to the bushel.

  Cashel Postmastership.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he could state if there was no officer in Ireland fitted for promotion to the postmastership of Cashel, which was recently filled by an official from Scotland; whether he will say in what respects Mr. Goudie was considered the best qualified; and whether he will state the number of
  † See (4) Debates, clxx., 986.
  834
  applications he received from officials in Ireland, and the length of service of each candidate.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Mr. Goudie possessess all the qualifications required, and was, in my opinion, the most suitable candidate for the post. He had longer service than the best qualified of the Irish candidates. Particulars of the applications received are never published.

  Telephones in County Cork.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received resolutions from the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and other public bodies in the South of Ireland in support of a telephonic connection between Cork and the important towns of Fermoy, Bantry, Charleville, and Youghal; and, if so, will steps be taken to carry this project into effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have received a copy of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The question of the extension of the Post Office telephone system in the South-West of Ireland has engaged my careful attention for some time past. Recent inquiries, however, at the places named, show that little local support would be given to telephone exchanges except at Fermoy and Bandon. Even in those towns the probable revenue would not cover the estimated cost of the service, but I hope shortly to be able to offer to extend the telephone system to those two places under guarantees, and elsewhere if the guarantee is forthcoming.

  Cotton Gambles.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, under manipulation, the prices of the American cotton futures contract, as used on the Liverpool exchange, with nearly 1,000,000 bales of cotton in that port and with only a very small quantity in New York, is selling at some 200 points over New York and twenty-five points over new crops for 1907–8 causing wide-spread mischief to the Lancashire spinners and manufacturers as well as to merchants and importers; whether he is aware that this artificial difference ha

  835
  enabled Liverpool manipulators to open up enormous gambling operations in the shape of straddles between Liverpool and America; and whether, under these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will take steps to safeguard the cotton industry from these gambling operations and manipulations solely made possible under the present form of futures contract as practised at Liverpool.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware that, according to quotations published in the Press, there is at present some considerable difference between the Liverpool and Now York prices of cotton for future delivery, but I find no evidence, from inquiries I have made in Lancashire, of any mischievous result arising there from in this country. While I have no sympathy with gambling operations, properly so-called, I am not prepared to take any steps in the direction of restricting legitimate dealings in "future" contracts.

  Tonnage Clauses in Harbour and Port Bills.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the intentions of the Board with regard to the tonnage clauses contained in the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, the Cardiff Railway Bill, the Taff Vale Railway Bill and the Leith Harbour and Docks Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I propose to introduce at an early date a Bill dealing generally with the question of varying the deductions from the gross registered tonnage of vessels now permitted by statute in order to arrive at the basis on which harbour and pilotage dues are to be levied. This Bill will, I hope, be referred to a strong Select Committee. In these circumstances I have suggested to the promoters of the Cardiff Railway Bill and the Leith Harbour and Docks Bills that they should withdraw those Bills which deal only with this question. As regards other Bills of this session in which the question is raised inter alia, I have suggested to the promoters that they should withdraw the clauses dealing with this particular matter.

  Land Allotments—Council Appeals.
  MR. BILLSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many appeals have been made to the Board by parish councils and district councils respectively under Section 9, Sub-section 4, of The Local Government Act, 1894; and if he can give the number of appeals granted and refused.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) There have been no appeals to the Board by district councils against refusals by county councils to make orders under the sub-section mentioned. There have been three cases in which parish councils have appealed. In one of them the appeal was not proceeded with, and in the remaining two the appeal was unsuccessful. In one of these two cases it appeared that it would not be practicable to secure the financial balance contemplated by Section 2 (2) of The Allotments Acts, 1887, and in the other the parish council succeeded, whilst the appeal was pending, in obtaining some land in lieu of part of that which they had proposed to acquire, whilst as to the rest their proposals would have involved a contravention of Section 10 (6) (c) of The Local Government Act, 1894.

  London Parochial Infirmaries and Pulmonary Tuberculosis.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state which metropolitan parochial infirmaries have special wards for the treatment of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis; and can the Local Government Board encourage the establishment of such wards.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) In the majority of the metropolitan Poor Law infirmaries special wards are set aside for these cases. The general practice is to extend this system, and I desire to encourage it in every way in my power.

  Vaccination.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if Dr. Fletcher reported on the case of Olive Hunt, who died after vaccination; if the same Dr. Fletcher reported on the case of Willy Kellam, vaccinated on 30th October, 1906; if the wound in this case took

  837
  seventy-two days to heal; and if he will lay a copy of Dr. Fletcher's Reports upon the Table of the House, or give a copy of the Report to the relatives.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Dr. Fletcher reported on both these cases. I do not know the precise number of days which the wound took to heal in the case of Kellam. The Reports were made for my information and are confidential documents. Hence I could not take the course suggested in the last part of the Question.

  Cost of Pauperism.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, according to the monthly statement of pauperism in England and Wales, there were, in 1907, 7·7 indoor and 15·7 outdoor paupers per thousand respectively, while in the London district the figures are approximately reversed, that is to say 16·8 indoor and 9·8 outdoor per thousand; will he state the cost per thousand paupers in the London district and also in England and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the figures referred to. The cost of relief per thousand paupers for a year, according to the latest figures available, was about £27,700 in London and about £15,800 in England and Wales.

  Bute Coastguard.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the salary paid for medical attendance on the coastguard at Lamlash and Kildonan, respectively, in the county of Bute.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Dr. Robert Jamieson, surgeon and agent, who attends both the Lamlash and Kildonan detachments, is not in receipt of a fixed salary, but is paid at the ordinary rate laid down in the instructions to Admiralty surgeons and agents. If my hon. friend wishes, I can furnish him with a statement of the actual amount paid to Dr. Jamieson during the last financial year in respect of these two stations.

  Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the quinquennial valuation of the Sun Life Assurance Society for the period ending 31st December, 1906, was completed within two months of that date; whether he is aware that the amount of the above-named insurance company's premium income, amount insured, and the number of the beneficiaries, is at least ten times as great as in the case of the Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund; whether, seeing that the staff at the India Office are fully employed on their current work, he will in future arrange for outside aid in procuring the quinquennial valuation of the Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund; and whether he can yet name a date for the completion and publication of the quinquennial valuation of the Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund for the period ending in 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I do not think that the valuation of assets and liabilities arising under Indian Military Service Family Pensions regulations can be compared with the valuation of an English assurance society. In a life assurance society the liability of the company generally terminates with the death of the premium payer. In the Indian Family Pension funds the liability to pay out commences from that date, and sometimes extends for over 80 years. The recognised mortality tables used by English life assurance companies are not applicable to the lives of Anglo-Indians, and the old tables compiled in the time of the East India Company no longer represent existing vital statistics, and now tables have to be quinquennially prepared or revised in order to arrive at an equitable valuation. I will endeavour to arrange for the preparation and publication of the quinquennial valuations, both civil and military, at a much earlier date. As stated in my reply dated the 14th February, the valuation as on 31st March, 1903, is now in the hands of a consulting actuary for his independent investigation and report.

  Enlistment in the Army Reserves.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  839
  whether any change had been made, or is proposed, in the terms of enlistment, conditions of service, or liability on mobilisation, of the men in Schedule D of the Army Reserve; if so, what is the exact nature of such change, when will it become operative, and to what categories of men.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The reply is in the negative.

  Volunteer Adjutants.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the Volunteer officers acting as adjutants are holding temporary appointments; to which branches of the Volunteer Service they are attached; and how many are appointed to county battalions with one or more detachments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) At the present moment there are twenty-seven Volunteer officers holding temporary appointments as adjutants in the Volunteer force. Of these seventeen belong to the artillery, two to the engineers, and eight to the infantry. Of these infantry adjutants three belong to county battalions with one or more detachments.

  Flogging in the Army.
  MR. LEHMANN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to make any statement as to the non-applicability of the limitations of the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Section 133, sub-section 2, of the Army Act, in the case of the exercise of such powers by the Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the field, as provided by the Army (Annual) Bill, page 5, line 41, and page 6, lines 1 to 7.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I propose to move an Amendment in Committee to the clause in question to make it quite clear that the Commander-in-Chief in the field shall have no powers to authorise the infliction of flogging for any offence.

  Judicial Appeals.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that,
  840
  in consequence of both divisions of the Court of Appeal (England) having been engaged during the current sitting in hearing appeals from the King's Bench and Probate Divisions, there is now a serious accumulation of appeals from the Chancery Division; and whether it is proposed that, apart from the Judicature Bill, which appears likely to meet with considerable opposition, any steps shall be taken to reduce these arrears at an early date.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Lord Chancellor informs me that it is not practicable to reduce these appeals more rapidly unless the Judicature Bill be passed and that is the principal reason for desiring that it should he passed. The Court of Appeal is obliged to arrange the cases which it hears with some regard to the comparative arrears from the different divisions.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Volunteers and the New Army Scheme.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteers who have served for years will be required under the now scheme to re-enlist upon the new conditions, or whether Volunteers now serving will be permitted to fulfil their present engagements upon the terms under which they enlisted.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): The Territorial Force will be raised and maintained by the county associations, which bodies, as they come into existence, will exercise authority only under the terms of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. Units of the existing Auxiliary Forces will be transferred to the Territorial Force by Order in Council; but the conditions of service of no individual now serving will be altered without his consent.

  Pensioners and Civil Employment.
  MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the information received from Harrods, Limited,

  841
  with reference to the employment of soldiers, with pensions, at a wage of 5s. per week.
  MR. HALDANE: I am informed that Messrs. Harrods have not dismissed a single civilian packer; that there are at present eight soldiers under instruction, and that they are quite independent of and in excess of the ordinary staff of civilian packers.
  Mr. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms which employ Army Reserve men do often take into consideration the amount of their pensions when fixing their wages, and will he do what he can to prevent that kind of thing in future?
  MR. HALDANE: I can only say I have given instructions that the practice, if it exists, shall be discouraged in every possible way.

  Camp Allowances.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary for War whether the Army rate of pay, mentioned in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, includes any extra allowances beyond that now given to soldiers for messing and service pay; if he can state the total amount to be paid per day whilst in camp for pay and allowances to a single man and a married man respectively; and if any deductions are to be made for messing or other charges.
  MR. HALDANE: The intention is that all ranks in the Territorial Army shall draw Army rates of pay without deduction. A sergeant of infantry will thus receive 2s. 4d. a day, a corporal 1s. 8d. and a private 1s.; in other arms the rates are higher. In addition every man will draw the messing allowance of 3d. a day so long as a grocery ration is not issued free, and the families of non-commissioned officers will draw separation allowance. Proficiency pay which takes the place of service pay cannot be obtained by the regular soldier unless he has two years colour service and is on a "long" engagement; the terms of service in the Territorial Army accordingly will not qualify a man to receive this pay.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked why the separation
  842
  allowance was only to be granted to non-commissioned officers, and not to corporals, lance-corporals, and privates.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say the non-commissioned officers were out for a longer time and required more allowance.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Oh no, not all.
  MR. MYERasked whether the Territorial Army when in camp would receive any compensation for loss of wages.
  MR. HALDANE: They receive the Army rates of pay; that is the only compensation we can give them.

  Volunteer Uniforms.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continual necessity for renewing uniforms of Volunteers, and in order to save wasted expenditure, he can state if there is any intention to clothe the second line as a whole in any particularly coloured cloth for service or other dress.
  MR. HALDANE: Service dress will be provided for the whole of the Territorial Force.

  Territorial Forces Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that he invited some twenty of the best known officers of the Auxiliary Forces to advise him last year as to the best method of forming a Territorial Army, he proposes to consult with them as to the details of the Bill he has introduced, and to learn their views as to the suggested destruction of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, before asking the House to agree to a Second Reading.
  MR. HALDANE: During the early stages of the present scheme of reorganisation I wished for information upon a number of specific points upon which I addressed questions to the Committee to which the hon. Member refers. The discussions and advices of the Committee upon those points were of great value to me. Now that a Bill is before the House I do not think that any advantage would

  843
  be gained by consulting the Committee to which the hon. Member alludes.

  Engineer Service—Civil Staff.
  MR. C. H. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when the Army Council will be ready to give a decision in the matter of the pay and promotion of the civil staff for engineer services.
  MR. HALDANE: The matter is still under consideration, and it is not yet possible to say when a decision will be arrived at.

  Press Laws in India.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Jotindranath Sen, editor of the Allahabad Citizen, was cited to appear before the district magistrate of Allahabad on 4th February with respect to a certain article that appeared in the Citizen of 21st January regarding the alleged misarrangement of the mela at Tribeni, and was asked the name of his informant, which Mr. Jotindranath Sen refused to give, and was then asked by the district magistrate to sign a statement of the interview; and whether he will inform the House as to the authority under which these proceedings were taken, and whether the purpose of the proceedings was to charge Mr. Jotindranath Sen with the crime of sedition.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Hobhouse, Bristol, E.): I have seen in the newspapers reports to the effect stated. I have no information as to the authority under which the proceedings in question, if they ever took place, were taken, or as to their purpose.

  Champaran outrage.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether all or any of the Bengali cultivators who beat to death Mr. Bloomfield, an indigo planter of Champaran, have been brought to justice.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: No information has reached me as to the result of the inquiry into the circumstances of the
  844
  murder of Mr. Bloomfield, but I have no doubt that every effort will be made to bring the murderers to justice.
  *MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that outrages such as these, formerly so rare, are now becoming more frequent, and does he not think that special measures are necessary for the protection of our fellow subjects?
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the Secretary of State has any information leading him to believe that such cases are at all common.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the inquiry be made by cable? I put this Question a fortnight ago, and we have as yet got no satisfactory Answer.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I think I can undertake to send a cable message.

  Uganda Railway.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the Uganda Railway Government strip, whether these lands are in the position of a security for the money advanced by the Imperial Government to build the railway; and, if so, whether he will make arrangements that no more of this land be alienated without the sums realised or accruing being allocated specially to the reduction of this debt, instead of being used as at present for current expenditure of the Colony.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W.): The zone or strip originated in the days when the future status of the railway was still undetermined, and the principle was then laid down that the receipts there from should be set off against the capital cost of construction. Now that the railway has become a branch of the Protectorate Administration the retention of the zone as a separate estate is anomalous and administratively inconvenient; and so long as the Protectorate is not self-supporting the appropriation by this country of the profits on the zone does not secure any real repayment to the British Exchequer. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have

  845
  decided that the question of repayments on account of the capital cost of the railway shall be deferred until the Protectorate can dispense with an Imperial Grant-in-aid; and that the railway zone shall cease to be treated as a separate estate, the revenue derived there from being treated in the same way as the receipts accruing from other lands in the Protectorate.

  Canada and the Navigation Conference.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the extensive coast line of Canada, His Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of inviting Canada to be represented at the forthcoming Navigation Conference, when the power of the Colonies with reference to the regulation of coasting trade is to be discussed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 18th instant by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade to a similar Question.†

  Railways in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of state for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any further statement as to the proposed railway development in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I regret that I am unable to make any further statement at present.
  MR. LYELL: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to give the information?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot indicate any date at present.

  Governors and Commercial Enterprises.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent disclosures in Ceylon, Fiji, and West Africa, where the governors after retirement had acquired commercial monopolies of various kinds adverse to the interests of these Colonies, detrimental to good and honest government, and
  † See Cols. 474–5.
  846
  contrary to the principles of free trade, the Secretary of State for the Colonies intends to take any steps to put a stop to these abuses; and, if so, will he say what these steps are.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Some weeks ago the Secretary of State addressed a communication to the governors on the subject of ex-governors engaging in commercial enterprises in the Colonies with which they have been connected. The Secretary of State desires that it should not be assumed that he accepts the wording of this Question as making a true presentment of the facts of the particular cases to which it refers.
  MR. MENZIES: In view of what was done in connection with the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries, would it not be possible in the future to make it a condition of the appointment of any governor that he should not, during his period of office or after, use the knowledge he acquired in the Colony for the purposes of personal gain?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Obviously it is quite impossible to make any regulation controlling the actions of governors after they have left His Majesty's service. The Secretary of State has issued a circular discouraging the practices complained of.
  MR. SMEATON: But what is the use of the circular in view of what has happened in Ceylon and West Africa, where the ex-governor purchased concessions from outsiders? Would it not be better to bring in legislation prohibiting the practice?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that that would be the most convenient course.

  New Caledonia.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the peoples of Australasia have made frequent protests against the use of New Caledonia as a penal settlement by the French authorities in close proximity to their shores, and if, bearing those protests in mind, His Majesty's Government made any, and, if so, what, representation to the friendly consideration of our French allies in the course of

  847
  the negotiations for the enforced labour of the New Hebrideans, with regard to this out-of-date method of dealing with Europeans convicts; and if those representations were received by the French Government in the spirit of the comity of nations.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Runciman, Dewsbury; for Sir Edward Grey): The Australian Government have on several occasions called the attention of His Majesty's Government to the use of New Caledonia as a penal settlement by the French authorities, and communications have been made to the French Government on the subject. These representations have been received in the most friendly spirit by the Government of the Republic, but they have not felt themselves in a position to give any definite pledge of policy in the matter, though they have stated that there was no present intention of reviving the practice In reply to a representation made to them in May last His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris received a verbal assurance that there was no intention of renewing the system of sending convict labour to the island, but if any change of system were contemplated, they would not fail to inform Sir F. Bertie so as to enable him to warn His Majesty's Government. No further intimation on the subject has since been received. There is, and will be, no question of enforced labour in the New Hebrides and no negotiations have taken place respecting it.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Are French convicts still being sent there?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The assurance given by the French Republic is that there is no intention of renewing the system.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if it is the fact that convicts are sent there for life, it would not be a great many years before New Caledonia ceased to be a penal settlement?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member is just as good a judge of the period of longevity as I am.

  The Hague Conference.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the instructions to be given to the representatives of Great Britain at the Hague Conference will be previously communicated to the House.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It will be desirable to follow the precedent of the the previous Conference, when it was stated that any public announcement beforehand of the instructions given to the British Delegates was inexpedient.

  Russian Tea Duties.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made, or can properly be made, to the Russian Government respecting the duty levied on Indian tea of upwards of 200 per cent. ad valorem, but for the excessive nature of which an important trade in Indian teas could be done with the Russian Empire.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Representations on this subject were made to the Russian Government in September, 1905, but, as the hon. Member for Central Hull was informed on the 22nd March last,†they led to no result. His Majesty's Government do not propose to pursue the subject any further.
  *MR. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the effect of the duty or the quantity of tea imported into Russia?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot say the precise effect, but I am informed that the quantity of Indian tea imported into Russia has gone up considerably in the last twelve months.
  MR. REES: Would not this be a favourable opportunity to approach the Russian Government on the subject?
  MR. HAROLD COX: Was not the imposition of these high duties by Russia by way of retaliation for the sugar bounties?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  †See (4) Debates, cliv., 618.

  Russian Troops at Teheran.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russian troops have arrived in Persia to guard the Russian Legation and the Consulates; and whether any similar steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Ministers at Teheran has reported that small reinforcements have been sent to the guards at the Russian Legation at Teheran and Russian Consulates at Tabriz and Urmia. It is not considered that any similar steps on the part of His Majesty's Government are necessary or desirable at present

  Macedonian Budget—Charges for Turkish Troops.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of Turkish troops charged to the Macedonian Budget during 1906; and whether any extra expenditure in connection with the contemplated reorganisation of the 3rd Army Corps at Salonica will be chargeable to that Bubget.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have no exact information as to the number of Turkish troops charged to the Macedonian Budget at any time. Any extra military expenditure, beyond that provided for in the Budget, is not chargeable to the revenue of Macedonia.
  MR. LYNCHpressed for fuller information as to the charges.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My Answer contains the fullest information at the command of the Foreign Office.
  MR. LYNCHwas understood to suggest that the financial delegate might supply the information.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: We are in constant communication with him, and my Answer contains the fullest information we have.

  Commercial Agent in the United States.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why £700 is still provided for a commercial agent in
  850
  the United States seeing that by the new arrangement an allowance of £100 at Washington is granted for a secretary in the diplomatic service for doing the work of the commercial attaché.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The appointment of the commercial agent in the United States does not expire until 31st March, 1908, and his services will therefore be retained until that date. Meanwhile, it does not appear that His Majesty's Embassy at Washington should be excluded from the operation of the new scheme as to commercial attachés.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Seeing that the salary of the British Ambassador to the United States has been raised from £3,000 to £10,000, could he not pay for a commercial agent?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Opium Traffic.
  MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received a proposal from the United States Government for the appointment of a Commission or Conference respecting the opium traffic in the East of Asia; if so, whether he can give particulars of the proposal; what has been the response of His Majesty's Government thereto; and how the matter now stands.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: In reply to inquiries, the United States Government are willing to take part in a Joint International Commission of Investigation, if certain other Powers are likewise willing, and if the inquiry extends to the production of opium in China as well as to the import of foreign opium. The United States Government have also been told that His Majesty's Government consider that procedure by way of a Commission would seem better adapted than a Conference for an investigation of the facts of the opium trade, and of the consequences of the opium habit in the Far East. A Conference, if convened now, might find that the materials before it were insufficient for arriving at a definite recommendation. If, however, the other Powers Consulted prefer procedure by way of a Conference, His Majesty's Government do not desire to press this view.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Will this preclude the Government from continuing their negotiations with China?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I should like notice of that Question.

  Commercial Attachés.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the stationing of commercial attachés in France, Japan, China, and Turkey has been found to be satisfactory.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Whisky Production.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the quantity of pot still and patent still whisky produced in England, Ireland, and Scotland in 1906, and the quantity produced in 1896 and 1886, respectively.
  THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): The desired information cannot be given, as the Inland Revenue accounts do not distinguish between pot still and patent still spirit. The total quantities of spirits produced in each part of the United Kingdom will be found in the annual Reports of the Board of Inland Revenue.
  MR. LEA: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman arrange for those figures to be obtained by the Excise authorities? They are of great importance to the trade.
  MR. ASQUITH: As far as I know there are no means of distinguishing them.

  Stock Transfer Fees.
  MR. G. H. FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to impose a transfer fee on all American railway stocks dealt in on the London Stock Exchange on the same scale as now exists on British railway stocks, seeing that, although American railway certificates are in effect warrants to bearer, they escape the duties payable on bearer warrants of
  852
  English undertakings as imposed by the Companies Act, 1867, and the Stamp Act of 1891.
  MR. ASQUITH: A stamp duty of 1s. per £1,000 was imposed by Sections 4 and 6 of the Finance Act, 1899, on share certificates of American railways on their first transfer or negotiation in the United Kingdom, and this was considered to be as heavy a duty as the circumstances would allow.

  Dividends on Mine Earnings.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if income tax is charged on the full dividends paid by mining companies which have only a few years life before them, and where a large part of the dividend must be applied by the shareholders to replace capital which is wasting; and, if so, whether there is any claim which can be made by the shareholders for repayment of Income Tax so overpaid.
  MR. ASQUITH: Income Tax is charged on the full "profits"(not dividends) from mines, ascertained as provided by the Income Tax Act of 1842, in Rule III. (2) and Rule IV. (5) of Schedule A., and no allowance is admissible on account of exhaustion of a mine. The law on the subject was very fully discussed and expounded by Lord Blackburn in the case "Coltness Iron Company v. Black" in the House of Lords, 1881.

  Names of Licensed Houses.
  MR. FIENNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are licensed houses in certain parts of London known to the police by the names of the cow houses and cow sheds; and, if so, whether he can state the reason given by the police for these names.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): The terms referred to are not police terms, and I am afraid I cannot enter into the question of their meaning.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. Fiennes, Mr. GLADSTONE said the hon. Member apparently understood the

  853
  usual meaning of the phrase known to the police.

  Rate Summonses.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a summons issued in the parish of Sutton, in the county of Surrey, and returnable on the 14th March, 1907, for the recovery of 5s, part of a rate made by the Overseers of the Poor on the 29th October, 1906, the costs were 3s. 6d., being 2s. 6d. fee to the clerk of the justices, and 1s. to the constable for serving the summons; and, seeing that in the borough of Wandsworth, county of London, the inclusive charge for summons and service is 6d., will he state why so high a fee as 2s. 6d. was allowed to the justices' clerk at Sutton.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Under a table of fees payable to Justices' Clerks in Surrey, which was settled in 1901, 2s. 6d. is the proper charge for the summons and hearing in a rate case, and 1s. is chargeable by the police at Sutton for serving the summons. No change can be made in the table of Justices' Clerks fees except at the instance of the Standing Joint Committee, to whom any representations on the subject should be addressed. The fees mentioned are not unusual in counties; I have no information as to fees charged in Wandsworth Borough.

  Inspection of Laundries.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what day before Easter he proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with the inspection of laundries in connection with religious institutions.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Bill will be introduced in another place either before Easter or immediately after the holidays.

  Complaints against Railway Companies.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints against railway companies under Section 31 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, have been received by the Board of Trade during each of the years 1904, 1905, and 1906.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): The complaints received under the section in question in the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, numbered 76, 69, and 108 respectively. These do not include general complaints that are received from trade organisations as to railway charges and facilities.

  Conveyance at Owner's Risk.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Joint Claims Committee of the English and Welsh railway companies has recently issued notices to some packed parcels carriers and parcels agents, threatening them that, if they pay claims upon parcels consigned for conveyance by passenger train at owner's risk without the authority of the railway companies, the arrangement under which the fee for collection of parcels is allowed will be cancelled; whether he is aware that it is the invariable custom of railway companies to reject all claims upon goods carried at owner's risk rates; and whether he proposes to take any steps to suppress this system of hampering trade.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am making inquiry with regard to the issue of any such notices as are mentioned by my hon. friend, and will inform him of the result. My information does not support the allegation that railway companies reject all claims in respect of goods carried at owner's risk. The matter is, however, dealt with by a Bill which this House has already read a second time.

  Bureau for Agricultural Labourers.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can see his way to organise an agricultural labour bureau under the Board of Agriculture, where labourers desirous of getting back to the land could be put into communication with employers seeking such persons, to their mutual advantage.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My noble friend is of opinion that there are considerable objections to the establishment of a labour bureau by a Government Department and he cannot therefore

  855
  see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. Something might, however, he done through existing agencies, and I should be glad to confer personally with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Infectious Diseases Hospitals.
  MR. LYELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the town council of Bournemouth to erect an infectious diseases hospital in the parish of Kinson, Bournemouth being in Hampshire and Kinson in Dorset; whether the inhabitants of Kinson have written to the Local Government Board protesting against the proposal on the ground that their water supply is drawn from a stream flowing close to the proposed site for the hospital and almost certain to be contaminated from it; and what steps he intends to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): The Chairman of the Kinson Parish Meeting has communicated to me the effect of a resolution passed by the parish meeting protesting against this proposal. I have no authority to interfere in the matter unless the town council apply for sanction to a loan for the purpose of defraying the cost of providing the hospital. I have not at present received any such application, but in the event of my doing so I will, before complying with it, give full consideration to all the circumstances of the case.
  MR. LYELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Local Govern-Board has no power to prevent a municipal authority thus prejudicing the value of property in a given neighbourhood unless a loan is applied for.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That is so.
  MR. LYELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to secure an alteration of the law to prevent that?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will, of course, consider any representations made to me.

  Carnarvon and Stirling Castles.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the First Commissioner of Works
  856
  what sums have been allotted to the maintenance and repair of Carnarvon and Stirling Castles.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Harcourt, Lancashire, Rossendale): The sum alloted in the Estimates for 1907–8 to Carnarvon Castle is £1,000, and to Stirling Castle £520.

  Welsh Education Department.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the organisation of the Welsh Education Department is expected to be in full working order, involving an accompanying reduction of the English staff.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Lough,): As my right hon. friend has already stated, the organisation of the Welsh Department is at present in a transitional state, and it is impossible for me to say when any changes consequent upon its being in full working order can be effected.

  Gateshead Education Committee.
  MR. J. W. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to a notice issued by the Gateshead Education Committee stating that, after the end of March, all children attending Gateshead schools but living in the administrative county of Durham would be excluded; if this is caused by the Durham County Education Committee refusing to enter into a mutual arrangement with the Gateshead Education Committee; and, if so, will he take steps to bring the parties together, and thus prevent much inconvenience to children attending Gateshead schools.
  MR. LOUGH: The Answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Board of Education have no power to compel a Local Education Authority to enter into an agreement under Section 52 of the Elementary Education Act 1870, but they have endeavoured, so far without success, to persuade the parties to come to terms.

  Secondary Schools.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when he expects to publish the new regulations connected with secondary schools.
  MR. LOUGH: These Regulations are now under the President's consideration, but I regret it is impossible at present to say on what date they will be issued.

  Legal Advisers of the Welsh Education Department.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the existing legal advisers of the Board of Education will give advice to the Welsh Department, or whether that Department will have its own legal start.
  MR. LOUGH: The services of the Board's existing legal advisers will be at the disposal of the Welsh Department should they be required.

  Llanychan School.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can now state what grounds the local education authority for Denbighshire have advanced for holding the school at Llanychan to be unnecessary; and what action the Board of Education propose to take in the matter.
  MR. LOUGH: The Board have not as yet been informed of the grounds upon which the Llanychan Church of England school is considered unnecessary, and it is therefore obviously impossible to say what action will be taken in the matter.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How long will it take the Board of Education to read the letter sent it?
  MR. LOUGH: The matter will be dealt with without delay.

  Training Colleges for Teachers.
  MR. TOULMIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any schemes for new training colleges for teachers, or hostels, have been sanctioned during the last two years, and, if so, will he name them; whether any schemes are under consideration and not yet sanctioned;
  858
  and will he name the accommodation in each case.
  MR. LOUGH: I do not think statistical information, such as the hon. Member asks for, can be conveniently given in reply to a starred Question, but I will send him a statement giving the particulars which he requires.

  Post Office Employees on Licensed Premises.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General I whether there is any rule of the Postal Service with reference to the employment by the Post Office of persons residing on licensed premises; and, if so, whether he can state its effect to the House.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Post Office servants are not allowed to have any part in the ownership or management of licensed premises, but they are not forbidden to reside on such premises, though they are as a rule expected to obtain permission to do so.

  South African Mails.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mail from South Africa arrives and is delivered three or four hours after the departure of the English mail for the Cape, thus entailing the delay of a whole week in answering letters; whether he can bring pressure to bear on the Union Castle Line to start their mail boats a couple of days earlier from Cape Town; and, if this is impossible, will he stipulate that this should be done when next concluding a contract with that company for the transport of the British mails homeward.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The mail service with the Cape Colony is performed by the Union Castle Steamship Company under a contract with the Cape Government which extends to the year 1910. There is already only one day's interval between the arrival of the outward mail at Cape Town and the despatch of the homeward mail; and it would be difficult to interfere with the existing arrangements without inconvenience. On the approach of the termination of the present contract the question will receive consideration. I should add that on

  859
  thirty occasions during the past twelve months it has been possible to arrange for the correspondence from the Cape to be delivered in London on Saturday morning in time for replies to be despatched by the out-going mail.

  Hong-Kong Mails.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, under the Liverpool and Hong-Kong mail contract, in which it is proposed to pay to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the sum of £60,000, whether the forwarding of the mails by this route will be more expeditious and economical than by the present route under the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Shipping Company; or does the Government intend renewing the contract with the latter company on its expiration at the end of the year and subsidise two alternative routes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The monthly mail service with Japan and China via Vancouver, carried out by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for many years paid under subsidy, has always been in addition to the British Packet Service by the Suez route; and no change in this respect is contemplated. Voyage for voyage the route of Vancouver is more expeditious than that of Suez in the case of correspondence for Japan and Shanghai, but there are more frequent despatches via Suez. The question of the course to be followed on the termination of the existing contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam I Navigation Company is under consideration; and I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on the subject.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General what was the amount of postage collected last year upon the letters sent to Hong-Kong from this country via Canada; and what is the annual subsidy paid by the British taxpayer to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for carrying such letters.
  I beg further to ask the Postmaster-General what is the time taken by the mail from London to Hong-Kong via the Suez Canal as compared with the time taken via Canada; and what is approximately the weight of letters sent
  860
  by the former route as compared with the latter.
  May I further ask the Postmaster-General what is the number of mail services per annum from this country to Hong-Kong via the Suez Canal, and what is the number of mail services via Canada; and what is the net annual cost to the British taxpayer of the two sets of services respectively, after deducting receipts from postage.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not yet in a position to give the detailed information asked for by the hon. Member in his three Questions. The necessary calculations are, however, being made, and the figures shall be furnished as soon as possible.
  MR. MYER: How many mail bags are sent by each mail on the Canadian Pacific route?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I must ask for notice of that.

  Employer and Apprentice Law.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a case which was before the Grimsby County Court on Tuesday, 12th February (Marris v. Olsen), in which an employer was sued for not teaching an apprentice his business, and which was dismissed without a hearing, on the ground that only a written undertaking had been given, and that the proper indenture had not sealed the contract; and whether, seeing that there was evidence of mutual acceptance of the terms of the said agreement by reason of the fact that a considerable portion of the agreed period of apprenticeship had been worked, he will take steps to secure that a written undertaking in such cases shall be a legal contract as though a proper indenture form was used.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,): The Question refers to an extreme illustration of a well-known law. I can hold out no hope of legislation on the subject.

  Scottish National Galleries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the

  861
  fact that, under the Act of last year, the Board of Trustees to manage the National Galleries of Scotland must be established by 1st April, is he now in a position to announce the names of the chairman and members of the Board.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire): Not yet. I hope to do so shortly.

  Achintee River—Bridge for Children.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that children residing in the neighbourhood of Strathcarron railway station are unable to attend the Camat public school on account of there being no footbridge over the Achintee River, will he consider the expediency of allowing the school board to apply a portion of its share of the general aid grant to the erection of a footbridge, especially bearing in mind that it has recently been decided that it is open to any school board to apply its share of the general aid grant, or any portion of such share, to improving the health conditions of its schools.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The provision and maintenance of roads and bridges falls within the province of the parish council or of the county council, and not of the school board. I have to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of 4th March.†

  Inspectors of Scottish Schools.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how many of the inspectors of schools in Scotland, who have been appointed since 1897, had previous experience as teachers in elementary schools; upon what principle and on whose nomination these inspectors were selected; and, whether, generally, inspectors have been appointed from among University lecturers who have had little or no experience of elementary teaching or elementary schools.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Of the inspectors (including junior inspectors) of schools appointed since 1897, eight had previous experience as teachers in elementary schools, thirteen had previous experience as teachers in secondary schools, one was transferred as a sub-inspector from the
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 486–7.
  862
  Science and Art Department, while the remainder, four, had experience as lecturers in training colleges or in the University. The appointments are made by the Secretary for Scotland as Vice-President of the Department from the list of those who have made application for such appointments. Generally, inspectors have been appointed from among men of distinguished University career who have had sufficient experience in teaching either in elementary or in secondary schools. Inspectors of schools in Scotland are not inspectors of elementary schools, but may be and are largely employed for the purpose of inspecting secondary schools as well.
  MR. SMEATON: How is it that teachers in elementary schools who often have large experience are only permitted to rise to the rank of sub-inspectors?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No class is debarred from the appointments. Candidates are considered on their merits and with regard to the duties to be performed without prejudice to any individual.

  Irish Labourers and Untenanted Lands.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that it is the practice of the Local Government Board to prevent the acquisition of tracts of untenanted land and deny to labourers the benefit of Section 8 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, will he require the Board to inform district councils that labourers are not legally excluded from the benefit of that section.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.): I am informed that there is no ground whatever for the statement that it is the practice of the Local Government Board to prevent the acquisition of tracts of untenanted land. No case under Section 8 of the Act has yet arisen. Myright hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland has already fully informed the hon. Member that Section 8 confers no power whatever to acquire lands. It merely enables a rural district council to dispose of superfluous lands which cannot be used for the purpose of providing labourers with cottages and plots.

  Labourers Cottage Sites.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can account for the habit of inspectors to sanction the acquisition of sites for cottages upon small farms, and reject, without reasons stated, applications for sites upon large untenanted tracts in the same neighbourhood; and will he have instructions issued immediately to inspectors that, where untenanted land is available, sites should be sanctioned on that land rather than on small farms.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that it is not the habit of the inspectors to act in the manner suggested, and there appears to be no necessity to issue instructions in the matter.

  Soldiers and Civil Process in Ireland.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, when Irish landlords, as part of the negotiation for the sale of their estates, by suing for hanging gales, suing in the superior instead of the local courts, and by other oppressive use of legal methods, get decrees for money before it is normally due, or decrees for more than one year's rent within a year, can he see his way to limiting equitably the extent to which the forces of the Crown will be given for executing such decrees.
  MR. BIRRELL: I can add nothing to the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member's similar Question on 28th March last, namely, that it is not competent to the Executive Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown for the protection of the sheriff when engaged in the execution of the King's writ.

  Mullingar Rural District Council and the Labourers Act.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a recent letter from Mr. O'Sullivan, of the Local Government Board, purporting to answer an inquiry of the Mullingar Rural District Council as to whether labourers were eligible for temporary lettings under Section 8 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, but in reality evading that question and misleading the council by answering a question not addressed to him; and, seeing that similar letters have been addressed
  864
  to other councils, obscuring the beneficial working of the Act, will he take steps to have the policy professed by the Government in this matter carried out by the officials.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have seen the correspondence referred to. The hon. Member has been entirely misinformed as to the purport of the inquiries addressed to the Local Government Board. I will send him a copy of the correspondence.

  Inspectors of the Irish Local Government Board.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many temporary inspectors are to be provided under Sub-head A of the Irish Local Government Board Vote, for whose salaries the sum of £1,000 is to be voted; and why the expenses of these temporary inspectors are expected to amount to a further sum of £1,000, which is equivalent to their total salaries.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not at present able to say how many additional temporary inspectors may have to be employed to deal with inquiries under the Labourers Acts. The estimate of £1,000 for salaries was based on the assumption that two inspectors for a full year or four for six months would be sufficient, but possibly a greater number will be required. The sub-head expenses includes subsistence allowance and travelling expenses. It is expected that the latter item will be unusually heavy, having regard to the large number of sites to be inspected.

  Irish National Schools.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that no portion of the sum of £25,000 voted from the Ireland Development Grant in 1906–7 towards the cost of rebuilding necessitous national schools in Ireland has yet been spent; what is the cause of the delay; and whether he will take steps to see that the moneys allocated by Parliament for this purpose are utilised.
  MR. BIRRELL: The sum voted from the Ireland Development Grant for national school buildings in the current

  865
  year is £15,000. This sum is in addition to the £20,000 provided in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings, Ireland. Owing to the temporary partial suspension of grants for building it has not been found necessary to draw upon the former sum. The delay in making the grants has been due to the discussion as to the basis upon which such grants are to be made, and also to the question of adopting new standard plans.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money has been actually used for this purpose?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have not got the figures. I hope that very soon a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at.

  Repair of Irish Elementary Schools.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has formed any estimate of the amount of money necessary to put the elementary schools of Ireland into anything like a decent state; and whether he will press upon the Treasury the need for an enlarged grant for this purpose.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his similar Question on Monday,†to which I have nothing to add.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take steps to get this money?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have already taken steps to secure a larger grant to be expended on this most necessary work.

  Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances is it necessary to afford special police protection to twelve persons in county Louth, forty-one in county Galway, nine in Mayo, thirty-nine in Clare, thirty in county Cork, twenty-four in Kerry, twelve in Limerick, and ten in Tipperary.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary
  †See Col. 426.
  866
  informs me that in the cases referred to protection is necessary for various reasons. The Inspector-General considers that it would be very undesirable to give details from which the particular cases might be identified, and I am therefore not prepared to furnish such particulars.

  Case of Martin Hawes.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the grounds upon which Martin Hawes has recently been discharged from Galway Gaol after undergoing only eight weeks and three days of his sentence of four calendar months for assaulton the police, and five weeks additional for drunkenness and disorder; and whether his attention has been called to the character of this man, and to the fact that he has been convicted for similar offences on forty-nine previous occasions.
  MR. BIRRELL: It would be contrary to the established practice to state the reasons which influence the Lord-Lieutenant in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy vested in him. All the circumstances of this particular case were before the Lord-Lieutenant, including the fact that the prisoner had been previously convicted on forty-nine occasions, as well as the fact that he had now suffered over two months imprisonment.

  Cloghroe Dynamite Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities have yet ascertained if a dynamite outrage was recently perpetrated near Cloghroe, in the Parliamentary Division of Mid-Cork.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities have not yet completed their investigation of this matter.

  Major Armstrong's Banagher Estate.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the date on which negotiations were opened between the Estates Commissioners and Major Armstrong for the sale of his estate at Claremont, Banagher; whether an inspector visited the lands

  867
  last October; and whether an arrangement has been come to as to price, and what are the terms.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners opened negotiations with Major Armstrong in June, 1906, and received their inspector's report on the estate in the following November. They have since had the matter under consideration, and are now about to make an offer for the estate.

  Butson Estate, Clonfert.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased or are in negotiation for purchase of the Butson estate, Clonfert, county Galway; and, if so, when may the tenants upon the estate whose holdings are uneconomic expect an enlargement.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have directed an inspection of the estate in question with a view to making an offer for purchase to the Land Judge, in whose Court the matter is. If the Commissioners should acquire the property they will prepare a scheme for the distribution of the untenanted land, but cannot say how soon this may be possible.

  Grants for New Irish Schools.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state approximately the date on which the Commissioners of National Education will be in a position financially to consider applications for grant towards the erection of new schools.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not at this moment in a position to give a definite Answer to this Question. I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject in the discussion on the Estimates to-morrow night.

  Gort Board of Guardians—Surcharge.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the surcharge made by the Local Government Board on three members of the Gort Board of
  868
  Guardians; whether he is aware that the surcharge arose out of a meat contract, which brought a saving to the rates; whether he is aware that the guardians surcharged had nothing to do with the acceptance of the tender; and will he explain how it is that, when there was no loss to the guardians in the accepted tender, the Local Government Board is now seeking to receive £38 3s. 2d.
  MR. BIRRELL: In this case the contract entered into by the guardians was declared by the Local Government Board to be null and void. The guardians, however, in spite of the warning of the Local Government Board, persisted in taking meat under the void contract, and the auditor was obliged by law to surcharge the payments made in the case. I have already informed the hon. Member that the Local Government Board have felt it to be their duty to sustain the surcharge in order to secure the due observance by the guardians of the law in these matters.

  Minkill Evicted Tenant, Leitrim.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the application for reinstatement which they received from Mrs. Bridget Moran, Drumnadubber, Drumsna, with reference to the farm in Minkill, on the Rowley estate, in county Leitrim, from which her late husband was evicted in 1884; and, in the event of her not being reinstated if compensation will be given to her.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have fully considered Mrs. Moran's application. The evicted farm is occupied by another person, and Mrs. Moran herself already holds a farm of nineteen acres. She declines to accept any land unless it be near her present holding, and in the circumstances the Commissioners consider that they cannot do anything further in the matter at present.

  Earl of Leitrim's Falcarragh Property.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what has been the result of the negotiations recently carried on by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of a

  869
  portion of the estate of the Earl of Leitrim, in the neighbourhood of Falcarragh, county Donegal.
  MR. BIRRELL: In February, 1906, the Congested Districts Board made an offer for the purchase of a portion of the estate referred to, but the offer was not accepted by the owner. The Board again considered the matter at their recent meeting, and decided to take no further steps for the present.

  Irish Teachers' Residences.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any new plans or rules for the erection of teachers' residences have been adopted; and, if so, in view of the fact that the maximum grant of £250 hitherto allowed is now insufficient, can he say whether and to what extent this sum has been increased.
  MR. BIRRELL: The answer is in the negative. The amount of loan for a teacher's residence could not be increased beyond £250 without legislation.

  Tubbercurry Potato Crop.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Curry and other congested districts in the union of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, an amount of distress prevails owing to the failure of the potato crop of last year, many poor people being without the necessary seed for cropping purposes; and whether, under the circumstances, he will see that, in any free distribution of seeds which takes place, the claims of the people of these improverished districts will be considered.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have inquired into the circumstances of Tubbercurry Union, and are satisfied that there is no exceptional distress in the district. There is no increase in outdoor relief as compared with a year ago. The Board have no doubt that the people will be able to find means to crop their land this spring.

  Irish Hall-Mark.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances he has already
  870
  a protective tariff in Ireland against Sheffield silver, and exacts a charge of 1s. an ounce for putting thereon the Irish hall-mark, whereas in England the charge is only ½d. an ounce for putting the hall-mark on Irish silver; and if he proposes during his term of office to impose like restrictions on all articles of British manufacture imported into Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The matter in question does not fall within the province of any department of the Government. The duty of hall-marking silver in Ireland devolves upon the Corporation of Goldsmiths in Ireland, a body incorporated by Royal Charter in 1637. Under the Charter, the Corporation possess the right to fix the charges for hall-marking. The hon. Secretary to the Corporation informs me that in 1896 their charge for hall-marking articles manufactured in England was raised to one shilling an ounce, in order to counteract a practice, which had sprung up in certain quarters, of sending articles to Ireland to be hall-marked, and then selling them as of Irish manufacture.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the Government justify these protective duties in Ireland against Irish goods?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think not.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Theft of Money at Corofin, Clare.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to Class 3, Vote 19, in the Civil Service and Revenue Departments Estimates for the year ending 31st March 1906, where a special sub-head has been introduced into the account, with the sanction of the Treasury, to recoup an officer in the Royal Irish Constabulary the sum of £10 5s. 10d., which was stolen from his office in the barracks; and if he can state in what part of Ireland this occurred, and if any investigation will be held, so that the perpetrator of the deed may be found out and brought to justice, and thus prevent such acts of theft from being committed in future.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member refers to the Appropriation Accounts, not

  871
  the Estimates, for the year ending 31st March 1906. The sum referred to, which consisted of public money, was stolen together with a locked cash-box from the office of the District Inspector at Corofin, county Clare, in May, 1905, while the officer was absent on duty. A strict investigation was instituted, and every effort made to trace the offender, but without success. The Irish Government were satisfied that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the officer, and upon their recommendation the Treasury authorised the loss to be made good from the Vote. The Inspector-General informs me that losses of the kind are extremely rare.

  Plunketstown Evicted Tenant.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what decision, if any, the Estates Commissioners have come to relative to the reinstatement of Garret Stynes, Plunketstown, county Kildare.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are considering this matter, and will in due course inform the hon. Member of the decision at which they may arrive.

  County Cork Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in connection with Instruction to Inspectors, No. 50, part 4, under date 9th March, 1906, the Estates Commissioners can now state whether land is available for evicted tenants whom it is not found possible to reinstate in their former holdings in the hereinafter named localities, county Cork, where untenanted land is plentiful, namely, Castlemagner and Cecilstown. Newmarket, Dromtariff and Dromagh, and Doneraile; if so, what amount is available in each of these localities respectively; and, if this information is not yet in the possession of the Estates Commissioners, will they, in view of the considerable number of evicted tenants seeking for equivalent holdings, direct their inspectors to make immediate inquiry in regard to the localities named.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are not aware that any untenanted land is avail-
  872
  able in the localities mentioned, so far as they have been able to identify such localities. If the names of the townlands in which it is suggested that untenanted land exists, and the names and addresses of the owners or their agents, should be furnished to the Commissioners they will have inquiries made.

  Longworth Estate, County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date upon which the Congested Districts Board agreed to purchase the Longworth estate, Oat field, county Galway; and when may the tenants upon and surrounding it, whose holdings are uneconomic, expect this land to be divided amongst them.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board agreed to purchase this estate in November 1903. The question of distributing the lands has been postponed, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion upon the question of enlarging the Board's powers in regard to the allocation of land to tenants in non-congested districts, whose holdings do not exceed £10 in value. At present the Board's powers in such respect are limited to holdings under £5 valuation.

  Irish Education Bill.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends to introduce a Bill this session dealing with higher education in Ireland, in accordance with the proposals recently laid down by Mr. Bryce; and, if so, can he say on what date.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to name a date for the introduction of legislation on this subject.

  Doohoma School Teacher's Dismissal.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that he has been unable to obtain any information from the National Commissioners of Education in reference to the dismissal and assault upon Mr. Cryan, principal teacher of Doohoma national school, county Mayo, committed by the manager, Father Dolphin, P.P., and his curate, he

  873
  will ask for a report from the police, who are aware of all the facts.
  MR. BIRRELL: It does not appear that the police are concerned in this matter. If it is alleged that the rules of the Commissioners of National Education have been broken, the case is one for appeal to the Commissioners, and if there has been any breach of contract or an assault has been committed it is open to the person aggrieved to adopt the usual legal remedy.
  MR. SLOAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the assault on the teacher?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will make inquiry as to that.

  Christian Brothers Schools at Carrick-on-Suir.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary the the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the schools belonging to the Christian Brothers and the Convents in Carrick-on-Suir, have been omitted from the valuation lists; if so, what was the amount of the former valuation; and whether the Government intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I learn that the premises referred to have been exempted from taxation since 1866 on the ground that they are used for charitable purposes. The Urban Council of Carrick-on-Suir were informed last month that if they would enter these cases for the next annual revision of the valuation the question as to how far the premises are entitled to this exemption will be fully investigated.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Are convents in which business is carried on excepted?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I can only answer the Question as far as the schools are concerned.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: But convents are also alluded to in the Question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman in considering this matter bear in mind the astonishing fact that these excellent
  874
  Christian Brothers schools receive no public money?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Telephones in the South of Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at the recent annual meeting of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, urging the extension in the interests of trade and commerce in the South of Ireland of necessary telephonic communication with such centres as Charleville, Fermoy, Bantry and Youghal; and whether the postal authorities are prepared to carry out this much needed extension.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The question of the extension of the Post Office Telephone System in the South West of Ireland has engaged my careful attention for some time past. Recent inquiries, however, at the places named show that little local support would be given to telephone exchanges except at Fermoy and Bandon. Even in these towns the probable revenue would not cover the estimated cost of the service, but I hope shortly to be able to offer to extend the telephone system to these two places under guarantees, and elsewhere if the guarantee is forthcoming.

  The Parliamentary Session.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider whether an opportunity may be offered to hon. Members for declaring by a vote their opinion as to whether or no business should be so arranged that the parliamentary session might commence earlier and terminate at the end of June each year.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman,): I do not know what opportunity can be offered for this purpose. I take it as pretty certain that there is a general desire that the House should rise a month or six weeks earlier in the summer than its habit has been. The difficulty is how to adjust business for that purpose.

  875
  I am myself disposed to think that it would not conduce to the despatch of business if the prorogation took place in summer. A better arrangement would be to adjourn in summer and prorogue in winter after an autumn session. But the Government have at present no definite proposal to make on the subject, and perhaps the hon. Member will, with others, apply his ingenious mind to a solution of the intricacies involved in this problem.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that I have already applied my "ingenious mind," having handed in a notice in this direction to be considered by the Committee on Procedure, whose report is to be discussed this afternoon? But the Committee has never sat since. Will not the right hon. Gentleman set up this Committee again in order that this recommendation may be made, as I am quite certain it would be made?
  [No Answer was given.]

  Passive Resisters as Magistrates.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that two gentlemen, since they have been appointed magistrates, have been summoned at Towcester for non-payment of a portion of the poor rate and been ordered to pay, he will take steps to prevent such magistrates from adjudicating in cases similar to those on which they themselves have refused to obey the law.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, and we are not prepared to interfere in any way with magistrates in the discharge of their duty.
  MR. HUNT: But can persons take an oath to enforce the law when they themselves refuse to be bound by it?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is hard to say what people may do when they are put to it.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL—MEMORANDUM.
MR. WALTER LONGasked a question of the Secretary of
876
State for War of which he had, he said, given private notice. It referred to the Memorandum on the Army Act. He wished to know why the first Memorandum was withdrawn.
MR. HALDANEsaid there was only a semblance of mystery in the matter—no real one. The paper issued was exactly identical, word for word, as that sent down to the Vote Office earlier, and which he had given instructions to be issued with the Army Annual Bill. But, by some mistake, instead of that being done the Memorandum was taken away from the Vote Office without his knowledge. Consequently the second paper was sent out in substitution for the one which actually went to the Vote Office.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: But is it the fact that the Memorandum was printed before it was ordered to be laid on the Table of the House, and if so, who was responsible.
MR. HALDANEsaid he rather thought it was printed at the War Office. There they printed their own papers—quite a right thing to do in order to have the papers ready in good time and sent down to the House promptly.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: called attention to a matter which he considered a gross breach of Parliamentary privilege. A large section of the Members of the House, to which he did not himself belong, had been accused of intentional fraud and of entering into a criminal legislative conspiracy. The accusation was brought by the senior Member for the City of London in a speech he had delivered outside the House on the previous day. The rule was explicit: the imputation of dishonourable and corrupt motives to Members of that House was not allowed, and had always been regarded as a gross breach of privilege. The passage on which he founded the charge was as follows—
"Was it not rather a paradoxical position? You have a Party come into power with an overwhelming numerical majority at their back. You have their leaders pledged to Home Rule, all believing in Home Rule. You have followers the great majority of whom

877
are also pledged to Home Rule, and all believing in Home Rule. But this Party, with its enormous Parliamentary strength, has not the courage of its opinions, and is so afraid of the public feeling in England and Scotland that it is not going to carry out the policy in which it says over and over again with unwearied iteration that it thoroughly believes. What is the inference to be drawn from that strange and paradoxical state of things? It is that the policy of the present Government of Ireland is a deliberate and intentional fraud upon the British electorate. If you consider, in addition to and in conjunction with the particular facts that I have just described to you, the attitude taken with regard to the House of Lords, you will then. and then only, grasp the full nature and extent of the criminal legislative conspiracy of which we are now to be the victims.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Do you mind going on?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would leave the right hon. Gentleman to do that. He contended that the use of the words "deliberate and intentional fraud" and "criminal legislative conspiracy" was a breach of privilege, as imputing corrupt and dishonourable motives to Members of the House in relation to their Parliamentary duties. He cited a case in which Lord Selborne, when a Member of the House Commons, imputed corruption to the Irish Members. Attention was called to the speech in the House, and Mr. Speaker Peel said the words might be discourteous, but there was no mala fides imputed to Members in the discharge of their duties in the House. In the present case, however, he contended there was mala fides clearly imputed, not to one or two Members, but to a whole Party in relation to their Parliamentary duties, and he asked Mr. Speaker to rule that the words were a breach of privilege.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks me whether in my opinion there is any breach of privilege in the use of the words attributed to the senior Member for the City of London; and he founded himself, as I understand, on two expressions used in the course of a speech—the word "fraud" and the words "criminal legislative conspiracy."
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Intentional fraud.
*MR. SPEAKER: That is no matter. Fraud must be intentional. If I believed,
878
or if anybody who either heard or read the words, believed that the right hon. Gentleman was imputing to Ministers conduct which was capable of being indicted for what "fraud" or "criminal conspiracy" really means, it would be obvious that a breach of privilege had been committed. But I cannot think that anybody who heard the words or who had read them would for a moment believe that any such meaning could be attached to them; and taking the very instance the hon. Member has given of the ruling of one of my predecessors as to whether mala fides had been imputed or not, I should say, taking that as a criterion, that I should be justified in saying that no mala fides had been imputed such as to bring the conduct within the scope of an indictable offence. We know perfectly well that, in the ardour of political contest, words are very often considerably strained; but I feel convinced that in this instance no breach of privilege has been committed.

STANDING COMMITTEE (CHAIRMAN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortleyreported from the Chairman's Panel; That they had appointed Sir David Brynmor Jones to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  TRUSTS BILL.
  "To codify the Law relating to private Trusts and Trustees," presented by Mr. Rendall; supported by Mr. Cave, Mr. Micklem, Mr. Stewart-Smith, and Mr. Bertram; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

  LEEDS (SOUTH PARADE CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL.
  "To confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the charity consisting of the Particular or Calvinistic Baptist Chapel in South Parade, in the city of Leeds," presented

  879
  by Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

KINGSWOOD (WHITFIELD TABERNACLE, SCHOOLROOM, ETC.) CHARITY BILL.
"To confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the charity consisting of the Whitfield Tabernacle, Schoolroom, and trust property in the parish of Kingswood, in the county of Gloucester," presented by Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
LONGTON (CAROLINE STREET CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL.
"To confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the management of the charity consisting of the Congregational Chapel in Caroline Street, in the borough of Longton, in the county of Stafford," presented by Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
DOGS (INJURIES TO PERSONS) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Injuries to Persons by Dogs," presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Mr. Crombie, Dr. Shipman, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir John Jardine, Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, Mr. Arnold Herbert, and Mr. Molteno; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th April, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
"To promote Agricultural Education and nature study in Public Elementary Schools," presented by Mr. Jesse Collings, supported by Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Rothschild, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Arkwright, and Mr. Carlile; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
FERRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
"To confer on county councils in Ireland the power to establish and maintain Ferries; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Gwynn; supported by Mr. Clancy, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. O'Malley; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,),: in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Laws relating to Education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith, said: The purpose of the Bill is to effect certain improvements in educational machinery which it is thought can be secured without any change in the existing general organisation and without touching questions such as the area of educational administration. It proposes, in the first place, to confer certain additional powers upon school boards. Among those are power to do all that is necessary to provide machinery for the provision of meals to school children. The power of spending money for food is also conferred in certain well-defined cases, by a later clause of the Bill dealing with what may be termed neglected children. In the case of neglected children it is provided that where, as the result of medical inspection or otherwise, it is brought to the knowledge of the school board that a child is filthy or verminous or insufficiently clothed or fed, it shall be the duty of the school board to make inquiry as to the reason. If the parent appears to be at fault, he should be prosecuted for cruelty to children, and provision is made for the child accordingly. If he is unable by reason of poverty or ill-health to do his duty by his child, the case is to be referred to the parish council, but help given by the parish council in such circumstances shall not impose any disability upon the parent. The school board has power, pending inquiry and as long as may be necessary, to make requisite provision for the child from the school fund. The Bill further proposes to confer upon school boards power to make by-laws to enforce attendance to a reasonable extent at continuation classes of pupils under seventeen years of age who have ceased attendance at the day school. Such by-laws will be made only when the board are able to satisfy the Department that there is adequate provision of suitable continuation classes for their district. It is believed that the time is ripe for such a step forward in certain districts, and that much may be done in this way to reduce the loss of any enduring result from our present large

881
expenditure upon education. Another section of the Bill proposes to restore to school boards in Scotland the power which they lost by the Act of 1898 of giving pensions or retiring allowances to future teachers and to existing teachers who have accepted the Superannuation Act. The giving of a pension or a supplementary pension will be, as it always has been since 1872, voluntary on the part of the school boards, and it is provided that grants in aid of pensions to teachers shall be made under certain defined conditions from the Scottish Local Taxation Account Fund. I may remind the House in this connection that the position in Scotland differs widely from that in England. The circumstances of Scotland are different; the organisation is different. There is a school board in every parish, and historically the claim of teachers to a pension or retiring allowance has always been recognised. By another clause in the Bill, all the Local Taxation Funds available for education in Scotland are consolidated. After providing for certain prior charges, such as the grant in aid of pensions to teachers already mentioned, and the expenses of the Leaving Certificate Examination which have hitherto been borne by these funds, the balance will be distributed to county and burgh secondary education committees for the purpose of enabling them to make provision for a well-organised system of secondary and technical education within their districts, in accordance with schemes approved by the Department, as is the case at present in respect to secondary education. There are a few minor provisions which provide for an effective audit of the accounts of both public and voluntary schools in receipt of grants, with power of surcharge; a section to facilitate the working of the Day Industrial Schools Act in the case of truant schools by allowing a shorter period of detention; a section to enable school boards, in certain cases, to recover from other school boards expenditure upon the education of children without their districts; and a section to facilitate the transfer of insufficiently endowed secondary schools under a trust to school boards. Lastly, the Bill abolishes the cumulative vote and makes the parish council franchise appli-
882
cable to elections for school boards. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which I hope will commend itself to the consideration of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that he did not intend to divide the House on the First Reading of the Bill, although he had some criticisms to offer. According to the proverb they ought to consider half a loaf better than no bread. But the gift of half a loaf was apt not to hasten but to delay the more valuable gift of the whole loaf which they desired. This Education Bill for Scotland was more than due. It had been due since 1901.
MR. AINSWORTHasked, on a point of order, if the hon. Member was opposing the Bill or not; because it might be gathered from his observations that the measure carried out his views.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman had begun his speech by saying that he did not propose to divide the House against the Bill; but he gathered that the hon. Gentleman had some criticisms to offer upon some parts of the measure, and if that were so he thought that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to proceed.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that what he wanted to insist upon was that a Bill dealing with education in Scotland had been due since 1901, and strong objections had been made to the delay in passing such a measure. That delay had been attributed to the late Unionist Government. The late Government presented a Bill of large scope and wide policy, which was received with acclamation from all sides of the House, although there had been some signs of variation of opinions amongst hon. and right hon. Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench. Was it possible that such variation of opinion was the reason why instead of

883
introducing a Bill of a wide and comprehensive character, the present Government had introduced a Bill which proposed to deal with Scottish education problems in homœopathic doses? The administration of education in Scotland was at the present time in the hands of 984 elected school boards, and this multiplicity of petty authorities prevented Scotland from moving forward on the line adopted in England of co-ordinating preliminary and secondary education. That was a question on which the vast preponderance of Scottish opinion was entirely at one. The great problem of administrative areas which had occupied them for so long, and which had been discussed so fully, had been dismissed and passed over by the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to see that the Bill made some provision for medical care in the schools, but they would never have a satisfactory state of things until that system was directed by the Central Department and was worked upon scientific methods. Such working was provided for by the former Bill, but not by the present. As to the provision of pensions for teachers, he had the greatest sympathy with that object, and he would join in the promotion of a single clause Bill to bring it about. He objected, however, to the method in which the Bill dealt with the vexed question of the provision of meals. It provided for an entirely different machinery from that proposed in the Bill lately brought before the House by a private Member, which passed its Second Reading only because of the strong support of the Government. It was now proposed to make the money provided for that purpose payable by the Poor Law authorities, or the parish councils, and not by the school boards. That was a fundamental distinction, and he thought they were entitled to ask the Government whether they were prepared to continue their support of the Bill of hon. Members below the gangway, to which they had given their adhesion, or to pledge themselves to the alternative machinery which was embodied in the present Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sinclair and the Lord Advocate.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To amend the laws relating to education in Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time, to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 130]

PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND).
*MR. CATHCART WASON: in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the tenure of parochial medical officers of Scotland, said he wished to bring before the House a great grievance which existed in the islands and Highlands of Scotland. Since 1896 a number of dismissals had taken place, and the parochial medical officers had been pressing this matter. During the election of 1900 the question was very prominently brought forward, and in the following session a memorial was presented to Parliament signed by practically the whole of the medical profession in Scotland and supported by all the non-official Members for Scotland representing both sides of the House on the subject. That memorial was very favourably received, and the then Secretary for Scotland, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and also Lord Dunedin and the Marquess of Linlithgow were sympathetic, and he had no reason to believe that the present distinguished occupier of the office of Secretary for Scotland held any antagonistic view to the Bill. He held no brief for the medical profession, and they had in that House members who were quite capable of representing their views. This was a question which in the islands and Highlands of Scotland affected the poor to a very great extent. Owing to our un-Christian and immoral land law the position of the poor in the North of Scotland had become one of very great difficulty. They had only three classes of people to turn to for aid and assistance—the minister, the schoolmaster, and the doctor—and of those the doctor held the most uncertain position and was the one who suffered most. The minister and schoolmaster could hold on to their positions, but it was a great and growing injustice that the doctor could be thrown out of his position.

885
without proper notice, and great scandal attached to that state of things. A case had recently arisen where a doctor had been dismissed. He had a young family and had to commence the world again with a black mark against him. By means of this Bill they did not ask for very much. All that they wanted was that these parochial medical officers should have the right to go to the Local Government Board and have their cases heard before that body. At the present moment the medical officers of poor-houses had that, right, and the result of their having that right was that there had not been a single application from any one of them to the Secretary for Scotland as representing the Local Government Board. In England, with its vast population, there had been only six cases in which such dismissal had taken place during the last five years. In Ireland during the same period there had been only three cases, and it was for the purpose of doing this small act of justice, of giving these men the right to appeal, that he had ventured to bring forward the Bill in the manner he had done, and he hoped it would commend itself to the Government and to the House.
Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the tenure of parochial medical officers in Scotland"—(Mr. Cathcart Wason)—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Gullard, Sir Henry Craik, Viscount Dalrymple, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Younger, Mr. Cross and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the tenure of office of Parochial Medical Officers in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

BUSINESS OF THK HOUSE (PROCEDURE).
MR. SPEAKER: having called on Sir H. CaMPBELL-BANNERMAN—
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to raise a point of order. He was sorry that he could not give earlier notice of his intention to raise this objection to the Motion of the Prime Minister, but it took a very considerable time to go through the fifty-eight or fifty-nine recorded cases of alteration of the Standing Orders in order to see what the practice had been in all except four such matters. In the recorded cases of either new Standing Orders or amendment of Standing Orders the matter had been taken on the Report of a Select Committee. There were, however, cases recorded in which the procedure had been similar to that now being adopted. In 1901 and 1902 the matter was dealt with on that footing, but in every other reported case the practice had been to submit to the House the Standing Order which it was proposed to amend or repeal. He submitted that that practice ought to be adhered to. In the second place, in every alteration or insertion of words, the practice seemed to have been to effect it by way of amendment of the existing Standing Order. Therefore, if the Prime Minister's Motion was simply one to alter one of the existing Standing Orders, it should be brought before the House by way of Amendment and not by way of Resolution. The practice had also been that if a new Standing Order was proposed, or was submitted in substitution of an existing Standing Order, the first Resolution was, the existing Standing Order having been read, that the House should repeal it. That difficulty seemed to have occurred to those who were making the present proposals, because on the Notice Paper it was suggested that they should repeal Standing Order 46; and there were also further Amendments to follow making a considerable number of alterations in Standing Order 47.The House would find itself in a very peculiar position if the Motion of the Prime Minister were passed and they had not repealed Standing Order 46. The effect would be that they would have two perfectly inconsistent Standing Orders a very anomalous position. One suggested answer to his point of order was that if the two existing Standing Orders were repealed

887
and the new one was not accepted by the House they would find themselves in the difficulty of having no Standing Order upon the point involved. But that was nothing like so serious a difficulty as would arise from having two perfectly inconsistent Standing Orders at one and the same moment. That difficulty arose, as would be observed by anyone who read the Standing Orders, when some years ago they repealed a portion of a Standing Order and put nothing in its place. His point of order was that the invariable practice should be followed, and that Standing Orders 46 and 47 should be repealed. Then. if the House consented, they should take the new Standing Order proposed by the Prime Minister, which would take the place of Standing Orders 46 and 47, and there would be an opportunity of moving Amendments. Unless that practice were followed they could not have a Second Reading debate on the whole proposition such as they ought to have. The Amending of the Standing Orders of the House was a most important proceeding, and it ought to be carried out in accordance with established practice.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member raises three points. The first is whether the Standing Order, which it is proposed to repeal, ought to be read as from the Table. The hon. Member says that on looking at the Journals he finds that this has always been the case. As a matter of fact what he has found are entries of the Standing Orders having been read. For a great number of years the Standing Orders have always been taken as read; ever since Members have been able to read, or ever since they were printed and available, it has been unnecessary formally to read from the Table the words of the Standing Order. If the hon. Member looks to-morrow, or later, he will find in to-day's proceedings that the Standing Order will have been entered as having been read. The hon. Member's second point is that the Prime Minister ought to have moved the repeal of the Standing Order to which he objects, and then asked the House to enact a new one. That is not the procedure followed in the Committee Stage of a Bill. There an Amendment is made, and subsequently anything
888
which stands in the Bill and which is inconsistent with the Amendment which is made at an earlier stage of the Bill, is struck out. The inconsistent parts are not struck out first before the new parts are inserted; and it seems to me that the procedure which the Prime Minister proposes would really be much the more convenient to the House than that of which the hon. Member gives an example—the inconvenience of first repealing before you enact afresh. It seems to me that the better course is first of all, for the House to agree upon that which it wants inserted in the Standing Orders, and then subsequently that part of the Standing Orders which is inconsistent with what the House has agreed upon, can be struck out; because if first of all you struck out that which you do not like, there might be difficulty in agreeing upon that which you wish to insert, and, therefore, a blank would be made.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Of course, if we were considering this in Committee there would be no possible answer, Sir, to what you are laying down. But it is not being considered in Committee; it is in the House.
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that really alters the desirability of the procedure which I have indicated, which seems to me to be simpler and better. The third point raised by the hon. Member is what opportunity is there for the House having anything in the nature of a Second Reading debate. Following the precedent which has obtained of late years, I do not propose to object to a Second Reading debate taking place on the statement of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will make his proposals, and those proposals as a whole will then be open to the observations of hon. Members of the House, and after the debate has continued for some little time, or when it has exhausted itself, then the House will approach the Amendments.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Will there be an opportunity of dividing on the main principle?
*MR. SPEAKER: There will be no question on which a division can be

889
taken, but the hon. Member will have an opportunity of dividing when the question arises of the new Standing Order, as amended, being made a Standing Order of the House.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OR THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Stirling Burghs): There is one point, and I think one point only, on which I agree with the hon. Member opposite—that this is a very important business which we are undertaking to-day. We have no desire to underrate at all what may be expected to be the effect of the changes which I am going to propose to the House. I believe these changes to be salutary and capable of giving new life and vigour to the House to a degree that we may not be able yet to realise. At the same time, I quite admit that, like all changes of this kind in our procedure, they are necessarily of an experimental kind; and I hope that they will be treated without any partisan feeling, and that we shall all endeavour to regard the terms of these proposals with a view to the interest of the House of Commons, of Parliament and of legislation, and not on the ground of any prejudices or preconceived opinions of our own. I propose to ask the House that the number of the Standing Committees shall be increased. I ask the House to add to the work of the Standing Committees, to free their hands, and to give greater regularity to their procedure. By all these means, I believe, we shall increase their efficiency and their authority. These proposals will take from the House, in the main, the duty of detailed examination of measures of legislation. At present a Bill is considered by what we know as a Committee of the Whole House. If one looks back into history, I think it will be proved that in earlier days Bills were often committed to very small numbers of Members indeed. The House lapsed only in comparatively recent times into this habit of referring Bills to Committees of the Whole House. It is a practice contrary, I believe, to that adopted in the legislative Assemblies of almost all other countries. Certainly in France, and in the United States, the work of the great body of the Chamber is relieved by the delegation to par-
890
ticular Committees of the details of measures which have received the assent of the whole Parliament. And as our system at present works it really operates as an absolute hindrance and limit to the amount of work that this House can get through. I think it does more. To a large extent it takes the heart out of Members of this House, because they waste their energies, day after day, having really comparatively little to do except to listen; and they would have greater interest in the high duties they have to perform here, and they would be stimulated altogether in their capacity as Members of the legislative Assembly, if they were, to a much greater extent, brought face to face in their individual capacity with the details of measures in Committees upstairs. That is the theory on which, at all events, we proceed. The fact that something of that sort is required was, of course, acknowledged when the Standing Committees were erected some years ago. They were regarded with considerable jealousy and alarm by certain Members of the House; but, as I have said, although that was a new departure at the time, it was only a revival of the old traditional practice of the House. In asking the House to increase the number of Standing Committees and to facilitate the remission of Bills for their consideration, we are only seeking to enlarge the relief which has been given to the House and to make more effective and more authoritative the action of the House with regard to the details of legislation. No one will dispute the fact that the Standing Committees have worked exceedingly well. We believe that they will work better when. as we propose, their proceedings are assimilated to those which are familiar of the House itself. At present the Chairman of a Standing Committee has really very little power. I speak with personal knowledge, because I was the first Chairman of a Standing Committee, now more than ten years ago, I think, who ventured to apply the closure. A certain half-dozen Members, or not so many, were by Amendments skilfully drawn, and by speeches eloquently delivered, prolonging the proceedings, and this went on hour after hour, and day after day to the despair of almost everyone. I

891
consulted Mr. Speaker Peel, and—I do not know who has the credit of originating it—we invented a theory which answered our purpose, that there was an inherent right in any Chairman to secure the order and reasonable proceedings of the body over which he presided. I applied this inherent right, and the first men to congratulate me were the three or four Members who had been obstructing, and who said, I think, that they were at an absolute loss to know what would have become of them if I had not interfered for their relief. That fact impressed upon my memory the absolute necessity not only of a real power of applying the closure, but of giving to the Chairman something like the same powers as reside in the Speaker and the Chairman in this House. Now, Sir, we propose to alter the Rules of Procedure in a case like this. We propose that instead of a Bill being referred to a Standing Committee by a Resolution of the House, it shall go, as a matter of course, to a Standing Committee, unless the House shall otherwise direct. That will be, as I believe, a great reform of the proceedings of Parliament. There may be Bills, I do not believe there will be many in a session, which the House will desire to retain in its own hands from first to last. The other Bills will go to the Standing Committees and, having been dealt with there will, on their return, be considered on the Report Stage by the House sitting in its full capacity. In one respect, at all events, I think we are assured of the support of the Leader of the Opposition, because in his evidence before the Select Committee on Procedure, he said—
"It seems to me that a great blot, or the greatest of all blots, upon our procedure at this moment, is the fact that session after session goes by and Bills to which nobody, or very few, really object on their merits, are handed on from session to session, and perhaps from Government to Government, without becoming law. No political credit is to be got out of them, no Government loses by not opposing them; the people who lose are the public or the Civil Servants. If we were to earmark those Bills for Committee, I should think that one of the greatest reforms ever carried out, if it could be effected."
I hope that this change will have the effect of accomplishing what the right hon. Gentleman desires. I do not know that
892
in every case he will be satisfied about the earmarking; but, at any rate, if we pass these new rules which I am proposing, Bills will pass much more freely than they have hitherto passed through the House. Criticism directed against the scheme appears to me to fall chiefly under three heads. The source to which I turn for those objections is in the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who defines what they are. The first is that the difficulty in the way of such a scheme is that the Government possess insufficient control over the proceedings of the Committees; secondly, that the resources of the House, in point of numbers and of time, are unequal to the demand that will be made upon them, and that our proceedings will tend to suffer, if not in authority, at all events in efficiency; and, thirdly, that economies of time effected in Committee would be lost on Report. I believe that these difficulties are not so serious as at first sight they may appear. Take first the control of the Government. It is said that a serious demand will be made upon members of the Government. According to the scheme which I submit to the House, one of the Committees would be a Scottish Committee. I am not speaking now of the advantage or disadvantage of that proposal, but one of the Committees will be a Scottish Committee. We have the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who are an ample staff for the conduct of the Scottish Committee. There will be two Committees to which Government Bills will be referred, and one for private Members' Bills. Private Members' Bills do not require such assiduous attention on the part of the Government, and they could always have an opportunity of considering them at a later stage. But for the other two Committees, Ministerial heads of departments and their under-secretaries, and the two law officers might, I think, very well face, without much difficulty, that part of their duty. Then there is the difficulty which, it is alleged, we shall find adequately to man the new Committees. That, after all, is the most formidable criticism that has been offered. The right hon. Gentleman gave some very alarming figures to the Select Committee about the demand

893
made upon the House. I have his calculations here. He took four Grand Committees with eighty Members each, making a total of 320; then he took the twenty-nine Select Committees which he found to be sitting at the time, and he multiplied the twenty-nine Committees by fifteen—which was the ordinary maximum number of Members of each Select Committee—and that gave a total of 435. Adding the 320 and the 435, he got the alarming total of 755. Now, as this House consists of only 670 Members there was a deficiency which might well stagger one. But if the right hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, and if it were to be the case, as he implies, that every single Member sitting on the Committees was available for nothing else, and Members, so to speak, were absorbed and drained dry by the Committees, there would be nothing more to be said. But it is not so. Let me give the House the actual figures for last session. To begin with, instead of twenty-nine Select Committees there were only twenty, and the average number of Members was twelve, and not fifteen. Twelve twenties are 240, as against 435 which the right hon. Gentleman calculated. But these Committees did not sit the whole session, or anything like it. I have looked into the Returns on the subject, and I find that, taking the Standing Committees and the Select Committees, they sat, on an average, only seventeen days each—seventeen days out of a session which began in February and ended with December. So that there is a pretty fair margin of time, so far as the new Standing Committees are concerned. I have a few more figures. Last year was a year of almost unexampled pressure, but notwithstanding that fact I find that there were 207 Members who served on no Committee whatever. There were 244 who served on one; 104 on two; thirty-eight on three; thirteen on four; and one, the champion of all, who attended five. He was the hon. Member for East Clare. I do not know whether it was due to his natural desire for work, or to the much more natural desire of the Committee to have him among them. I have looked up the facts, and I find that he attended on no more than fifty-nine days during the session, after all, with all his five
894
Committees. I think that goes to show that the resources of the House of Commons are by no means exhausted, and that there are plenty of hon. Members ready and willing to man the Committees which we propose to establish.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has included Private Bill Committees?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes. I have the figures for the Private Bill Committees. About 100 Members sat on Private Bill Committees. Take the right hon. Gentleman's estimate, which I am not quite disposed to do, of the Members serving on Grand Committees at 320, and take the Select Committees at twelve each. The Members serving on the Select Committees are therefore 240. Then take those serving on Private Bill Committees, they are 100. Those altogether make 660, which still leaves a narrow margin. But appearances are deceptive, because the time occupied by Standing Committees and Select Committees last session was seventeen days, and that occupied by Private Bill Committees eight days Undoubtedly, therefore, it can be done, and done easily, and the effect will be that a larger period of time of Members will be spent in Committees. There may be many days when there is comparatively little legislative work to be done in the House of Commons itself. Is that undesirable if the work is being better done and more closely examined in a Standing Committee? I do not know that a little leisure during the sittings of this House is an undesirable thing to contemplate. It was suggested by one right hon. Gentleman whom hon. Members opposite regard with great respect, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, that it would be a good plan for the House of Commons to omit one day's sitting a week. I do not know whether that would be considered an advantage or a disadvantage; but how much more like the procedure of similar Assemblies in other countries would it be. But I believe the sense of active participation in the business of legislation, and the sense of being fully occupied in public work, instead of, shall I say, purely idling, or at all events not

895
being occupied in public work, in the library or the newspaper room, would have a considerable effect in satisfying hon. Members that they were really of service to the public, and in provoking, in time, that desire to be useful in the public service, which I know exists, and which, I know, at the present time, finds little means of employment. That is the general scheme we have in view. I have endeavoured to speak of it as plainly and as effectively as I can. I think the present system is intolerable to everybody. I admit that this is an experiment, and I admit it is a very considerable change; but I believe it to be a thoroughly good change, a change in the right direction, and one calculated to redound to the advantage of the country and the credit of the House of Commons. I do not know whether now, as I have not moved anything and am only making a general statement, I should say a few words with reference to the Scottish Committee, which is a little outside this scheme. It stands on another footing. We have had experience of it before. We had a Scottish Committee many years ago for two years, and it did admirable work. I do not think any fault was found with the manner in which it conducted the business entrusted to it. It gave great satisfaction in Scotland, where we have different laws and different religious organisations and different hopes and aspirations. We differ in many ways from England, and what my countrymen have complained of every session that I have been in Parliament is that the opinion of Scottish Members is over-ridden in the lobbies by the opinions and votes of Englishmen, and that this is unfair, and vitiates, from the Scottish point of view, the progress of Scottish legislation. I think great contentment as well as great advantages will be given to Scotland, and considerable relief will be afforded to this House, if we revive the old Committee of Scottish Members, and say that all Scottish Bills shall be referred to that Committee. For that proposal much can be said, and some things that can be said against it will come out. It is a plain proposal which I shall take an opportunity of laying before the House. I will not complicate the matter by bringing in the question of Ireland. I do not know that there is any desire for
896
an Irish Committee, and although Welsh Members may desire to have their views expressed and every weight given to their strong opinions in Committee, there is very seldom a purely Welsh Bill brought before the House, and, therefore, they are not in the same position as Scotland. As I say, I have put as plainly as possible before the House our views and intentions and the reason why we propose this change, which I admit is an enormous change in our procedure, and I now leave it to the judgment of the House. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed—

(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or debate, otherwise order. But this Order shall not apply to—

(a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidation Fund or Appropriation Bills; or

(b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders.

(2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the whole House in respect to other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from the Member who opposes, the Motion, shall, without further debate, put the Question thereon.—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very wide proposal in a very conciliatory speech couched in very moderate language, but he has not attempted to minimise the greatness or wide bearing of the change he proposes. I do not defend our existing procedure or contend that it is in all respects satisfactory. I think there is great room for improvement, and I hope we may enter into and carry through this discussion in its details, as well as in its principles, in the non-Party spirit for which the right hon. Gentleman has

897
expressed the hope. By that I mean that I hope when we come to deal with this matter in detail we shall find that elasticity and willingness on the part of the Government to meet reasonable objections that may be urged which is always associated with a non-Party debate. I wish I could welcome the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has made. They are in the main three. The first is to increase the number of Grand Committees from two to four. The second is that, with certain narrow exceptions, all Bills should be referred to these Committees unless otherwise ordered. The third is that a Scottish Committee shall be established, to which Scottish Bills shall be referred. There are minor proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman only referred in passing, dealing with the enlargement of the powers and the widening of the procedure of Committees upstairs. I do not propose to deal with those, as only once, I think, during the fifteen or sixteen years of my Membership of this House have I, owing to various circumstances, sat on a Grand Committee, and, therefore, I have a very limited experience of Grand Committees. I do not, therefore, propose to discuss this question, in the main, from the point of view of the Committees upstairs, but from the point of view of the House itself. What is the difficulty that meets us in our proceedings? It is worth while to ask that question before considering the remedy. The remedy which the Government suggests is based on the assumption that the House has insufficient time to do its work. I submit that it is not so; that it has sufficient time, but that it is badly allocated to the various matters which the House has to discuss. Much of it is wasted. Trifling details often occupy a vast amount of time, and Bills, in themselves non-contentious, often become contentious not because of what they contain, but because of the place they occupy in the programme of business. If we could sift the non-contentious business from the contentious, and allocate the time of the House between the two classes of business, I venture to say that the time of the House, in a reasonable session, would be quite sufficient for all the House has to do. In my view, therefore, it is not that the
898
House of Commons has not sufficient time to deal with its business, but that its time is ill distributed. That is at the root of our difficulty. The proposals which the Prime Minister makes do not affect the distribution of our time for the better. I think the Government are proceeding on wrong lines. I do not say that it is easy to devise practical measures which would carry out such a scheme as my observations have pointed to. I do not at all minimise the difficulty, but I think something could be done. The first effort made to put some limit to the time which might be spent on a single question was through the closure. We all know that for a complicated and contentious Bill—a Bill which any large section means to fight line by line and word by word—the closure is an inefficient instrument, unless you are prepared, as sometimes you ought to be, to give practically the whole of a session to the passage of one Bill, as was done by Sir William Harcourt and the Government of which the Prime Minister was a member at the time of the famous Budget Bill which brought about a revision of the death duties. The closure was never moved, and practically the whole time of the House during that session was given to that one great measure. There are occasions on which that ought to be done, and when no less time is sufficient in which to discuss the important questions raised by a great measure. But trusting to the closure alone has, in the case of a great and complicated measure arousing fierce opposition, broken down, and has been proved to be insufficient for the conduct of our debates with due expedition; and accordingly from the simple closure we moved to closure by compartments. It may be said that as the time to be spent on the whole Bill, and on certain sections, is allocated in that way, closure by compartments does carry out the idea which I have in my mind. But it has always been my opinion that that procedure is vitiated by the fact that the decision as to what the time shall be allotted to is in each case the arbitrary decision of the Government, of course subject to the acceptance of their proposals by the majority of the House of Commons of the day. But that is practically no check. The Government have to make up their mind what time

899
they think it reasonable that the discussion of a certain Bill should take, and then the House practically accepts the limit so arbitrarily fixed by them. What I think the Government ought to have done, instead of taking Bills away from the purview of the House in their Committee stage, was to try to develop some machinery for allocating the time of the House, not arbitrarily, and at the mere fiat of the Government, as is done under the closure by compartments, but by an impartial Committee of the House chosen somewhat on the lines of the Committee of Selection, or the Public Accounts Committee. I say the Public Accounts Committee, because I think there is a precedent there which ought to be followed in a case of this kind—the precedent that the Chairman shall always be a Member of the Opposition, not acting as a Party man. The House ought to be so jealous of its privileges and liberties that it should contain a majority in Committee rather of Members of the Opposition than of those who have a majority, for the moment, in the House itself. I do not say that such a scheme is easy to make, but I do say that I would infinitely sooner travel along these lines, and make some sacrifice in order to obtain that object, than along lines or make sacrifices to attain the object which is embodied in the Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He proposes to double the number of Grand Committees. I think there are many objections to that. I venture, with all respect, to say that he has made far too light of the burden and strain which will be imposed on Members of the House. I do not know what the views of the House generally are on the subject. I have once or twice said in the House that I am, in one sense, a professional politician. I have given up practically the whole of my life to politics. This House is my first care and my first business, and I can practically devote to the service of the House the whole of the time that is required for that purpose. I think I may say that, with the exception of last year, when special circumstances caused me to be absent, I have devoted very steady attention to the business of the House. I think that for the first ten years I sat in Parliament I did not dine out of the House five times in a year, when the
900
House was sitting at dinner-time. Therefore, I do not appeal to the House as a lazy man, or one who is not zealous for the service of the House. I think it is of great importance for the House, perhaps of greater importance than ever before, having regard to the increasing interference of Government and of Parliament by legislation in the business affairs of the country, that we should not make the service of the House so onerous that men who cannot give their whole time to it cannot afford to be members of it at all. Let me take some illustrations. We are often inclined to chaff legal Members on their intervention in debate, but who can say that in this House, and in the discussion of legislation in Committees upstairs, we can afford to be without constant advice from the legal Members of the House on the many complicated questions of law which arise? We have had a discussion where no law officer has been in charge of a Bill in Committee upstairs, and where the law officers have been absent during the debate here, and time has been wasted by the hour for the want of the legal direction which only experts can give. But there are a large number of Members of this House who have been at one time or another, and a considerable number who still are, active in the local life in the part of the country in which they live, as members of county councils or borough councils, or serving in one of the many capacities in which men of leisure, and light and leading, are called upon to serve in their various districts. That is a class most valuable to us in this House. We are constantly imposing new duties on local authorities and new charges on the local ratepayers, and the guidance of men who have personal experience, of the practical working of our schemes and theories is invaluable. Then there is the class of businessmen who have a certain amount of leisure, and who are now glad and proud to devote a portion of that leisure to the service of their country in Parliament; but they can only do that if at the same time they can maintain control over the businesses with which their whole position is bound up, and for the credit of which they are responsible. I have said nothing of the Labour Members, but not because I do not think it

901
is very desirable that we should have what I call direct labour representatives in this House. I think it is very desirable that we should. I do not know how this question affects them, or how far they have other occupations which demand their attention during a portion of the day. I can quite understand that what I say may apply equally to them. I think I carry with me the feeling of the House when I say that the country would be worse governed if you excluded, in any considerable number, the classes of people of whom I have spoken from the possibility of giving service as Members of this House. But you propose to double the number of Grand Committees. You are to have four Grand Committees sitting in addition to all the Select Committees and private Bill Committees. In addition there are such calls as may be made upon Members for sitting on Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees. All those duties are to be discharged by Members in addition to their duties in attending this House. What will happen? What does happen even now? The Prime Minister talks as if every Member of the House were available for service on the Grand Committees; but they are not. By the custom of the House no lawyers are available for service on the Grand Committees, and in the case of all Committees upstairs lawyers are habitually excused, because to enforce on them regular attendance on those Committees, as everyone knows, would drive them out of the House, unless they could afford to abandon the practice of their profession. [An Hon. Member: A good job too.] There are many others who might be able to give a certain amount of attendance, but who cannot sit regularly on these Grand Committees. It is within the knowledge of Members of the House that when there are only two Committees sitting it is not an infrequent thing to be unable to proceed with business for want of a quorum. If you multiply the demands you will naturally be still more constantly unable to find a sufficient number of Members. What happens under these circumstances? When Members of a Grand Committee have other calls upon their time, and when they have no particular interest in a Bill, they absent
902
themselves if they can. Many a Bill is left to be considered in Committee by a little knot—I do not want to use offensive terms, and yet I hardly know how to describe the position—of men strongly prejudiced in favour of some particular course on some narrow issue. If you have a Bill which is ordinarily described as a "fad Bill," every one who is interested in the fad will be there. I am not suggesting that all the faddists are on one side of the House. I have my own fads. But all the faddists would be there, and would be represented out of all proportion to the Members who stand for the general common sense of the House. I am opposed to legislation by experts, but I am equally opposed to legislation by faddists. I think that the best legislation is that which is decided by the common sense of the House after hearing the opinions of the experts and the faddists. Sometimes these make a valuable contribution to our discussions, but it will be a bad day when we are guided in our legislation by them alone. By this scheme you will put too great a strain on the ordinary Members of the House, deteriorate the composition of the Grand Committees, and the work of legislation will be less satisfactory than at present. The Prime Minister intends to make these Grand Committees take a far more important part in legislation than hitherto. I have in my mind the experience of last session when a private Member's Bill was sent up to a Grand Committee and the only representative of the Government was a member of His Majesty's household and he refused to take charge of the Bill. The Grand Committee suffered very much, I fear, from the lack of suitable advice and guidance from a responsible Minister who would have had access to all the information which might have been given by the heads of the Department and the law officers of the Crown. We know that when the Bill came back to the House the Prime Minister adopted it, and then it had to be entirely recast, because when it had to stand the fire of criticism of the whole House the Government did not attempt to defend its salient features. There is a concentration

903
of the attention of the country on the proceedings of the Whole House which you can never have on proceedings before committees.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: You have the Report stage.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, but do you think that that is a satisfactory way of legislating? Even the right hon. Gentleman's own Party does not think so. Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that on the Ministerial side of the House the procedure was considered highly unsatisfactory of allowing a Bill to go through Committee upstairs, and bringing it down here at the last moment to be transformed at a stage when the right of Members to speak is strictly limited as well as the opportunity of getting any explanation from the Minister in charge? I differ profoundly from the views of the right hon. Gentleman. There are to be four Grand Committees, one of them to deal with private Members' Bills. But how is the question to be decided as to which private Members' Bills shall have precedence? That point was not explained by the Prime Minister. One of the new Grand Committees is to devote itself exclusively to Bills dealing with Scottish business; but private Members' Bills can never have precedence over Government Bills on that Grand Committee, because all Scottish Bills—Government and private alike—must go to that Grand Committee unless specially retained in the House. On the other hand, if an English private Member on the first private Members' day in the session, carries his Bill to a Second Reading, it will at once have precedence in the Grand Committee appointed to deal with private Members' Bills; but if a Scottish private Member has the fortune of the ballot over an Irish or Welsh Member, and his Bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, that Bill will have no precedence until after the Government business has been dealt with. That is a point which the right hon. Gentleman will have to deal with. He may say that the new Rules as drafted will not impose a new disability
904
on private Members for Scotland who have been fortunate enough to carry their private Bills to the Scottish Grand Committee. But the Scottish Grand Committee was no part of the original scheme; it has been grafted on it. It is an excrescence which I hope, at a subsequent stage, the right hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by the House to remove. Now, I come to the crucial point, viz., the proposal to refer all Bills to these Grand Committees, unless otherwise ordered. How does the House exercise its functions in legislation? It has been made a matter of complaint that the power of the Executive has been growing at the expense of the House of Commons. I think that is true and that probably it is advantageous on the whole. But it has been made a subject of complaint by private Members that the House of Commons is becoming more and more a mere agency for registering the will of the Government of the day, and that the only real power left to the House of Commons is to turn out the Government. Though it is true that that tendency is at work and that changes have occurred, at any rate there still remains one check which the House of Commons can apply, and that is in Committee of the Whole House on Government Bills. If the House objects to the Second Reading it means that the House is willing to turn out the Government. On the Report stage you have a very limited opportunity. Any real chance of influencing legislation is reserved for the Committee stage of Bills. Any one who has been in the House for a considerable number of years can recall instance after instance where a minority, by force of argument and sound reasoning, and by bringing up facts not within the knowledge of Ministers, have compelled the Government to admit changes in their proposed legislation—amendments and alterations sometimes even of a far-reaching character. I maintain that the one opportunity that the House has of making its mind felt in legislation is the Committee stage, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes should exist no longer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to attach great importance to the Report stage. I attach

905
much less importance to the Report stage than to the Committee stage. An Amendment is sometimes moved which is very inadequate for the purpose in view, or it may happen that a Member does not appreciate the force and extent of the change which he has suggested, but as soon as he has moved the House expects an answer from the Government as to the line which they will take. The Minister in charge of the Bill speaks early; but a new aspect may be given to the discussion, showing that what has been treated in the first instance as a mere technicality involves a great principle or some important matter of fact. On the Report stage the Minister moves his clauses dealing with questions of this kind, and again and again further discussion has shown that the most important points at issue have been entirely missed in the discussion which has taken place or have been entirely misunderstood. In Committee you can deal with matters of that character, but on Report stage the Minister can only speak once, whereas in Committee he can speak many times and deal with points as they arise. I may be told that another Minister can come to the assistance of his colleague, but there is always behind a Bill one Minister who has all the experience of his Department and the knowledge he has gained from deputations and from correspondence, and he alone can satisfactorily deal with the questions raised. I know that on one occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy expressed the opinion with regard to one important Bill that there was only one Minister who could be put in charge of it, and that nobody could take his place. If that is so, and there is no doubt it is, I say that the discussion on Report is the most ineffective way, and comes at a most inopportune time, for a Minister to deal with questions of the kind I have indicated. But much as I am ready and anxious to see our procedure reformed, I would invite the Government not to restrict our opportunities in Committee, but, if it is necessary to restrict them at all, to do so on Report. If you give full and fair opportunities of discussion in Committee you may fairly say all the old points of con-
906
troversy shall not be reopened on Report. It may be a great change in our procedure, but you might say that the questions raised in Committee shall not be re-opened, and that the discussion shall be limited to points arising out of the changes made in the Bill in Committee. That would further the progress of the Bill; it would lessen the amount of time which our discussions occupy, but it would increase the control of this House—the only control which is operative in great measures—afforded by the opportunity of examination in Committee. The Government admit that some measures must not be treated in the way they propose shall be the rule, but I wonder on what principle they have made their selection. The resolution says that the Order shall not apply to (a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. First of all I wonder why some of those Bills are included, and then I wonder why others are excluded. Take the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is notorious that there is nothing which can be discussed on the Committee stage of that Bill, except certain technical questions, and I should have thought that it was eminently fitted to be entrusted to a Committee upstairs. I can understand the Finance Bill's not being sent to a Grand Committee, but there are other Bills just as important in their constitutional bearing which the House might equally well reserve to itself as the Finance Bill. We live under an unwritten Constitution, and although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred us to foreign example, he did not refer us to Colonial example, but I think in the great Colonies, among those of our own blood, the practice is more assimilated to the practice of this House than to that of foreign nations. The powers of this House are inconceivably greater than the powers of any foreign Parliament, greater than those of the Congress of the United States, greater than those of the French Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate. The powers of this House and of this Parliament are without parallel among the Parliamentary powers in the world. Parliament can deal with any and every constitutional question in exactly the

907
same way as and without any further formalities than those with which it deals with a railway Bill or a sewage measure. Is it right that the great power which the House of Commons has in this respect should be transferred from the House as a whole to a Committee of eighty Members upstairs? If there is to be a rule of this kind the Government must consent to exclude not merely Finance Bills, but Bills dealing with the Constitution and all Bills dealing with the Army and Navy, linked as they so intimately are with our Constitution. There are other Bills also which ought to be excluded. But meantime I ask the Government this question, On what ground do they exclude Finance Bills, and Finance Bills only, from going upstairs? I come to the last of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, on which he said very little but the importance of which he did not seem to realise. It is the proposal that all Scottish Bills should stand referred to a Scottish Committee, composed of all the Scottish Members with a few English Members. There is a precedent for that, I think, of right hon. Gentleman's own creation, or the creation of a Government of which he was a member. I think I voted against him at that time, and I think he will not be surprised that I have not changed my mind since. After all, we do not sit here to legislate as Englishmen for England, as Irishmen for Ireland, as Scotsmen for Scotland, or Welshmen for Wales; we sit as the Legislature of the United Kingdom. It is true that when a reasonable spirit prevails we attach importance to the views of hon. Members coming from the particular part of the United Kingdom with which the Bills are concerned. But it is a constitutional innovation, and I think a bad constitutional innovation, to attempt to split up this House into national sections to deal with legislation instead of making the legislation the result of the common sense of the House as a whole. The Prime Minister or one of his colleagues will perhaps give us some little further explanation as to what he considers purely Scottish Bills. I presume what he has in his mind is a Bill that affects Scotland only, but it may also affect other interests in the United Kingdom. We had a purely Scottish Bill introduced by
908
the Secretary for Scotland yesterday, and the Government admit that if that Bill is accepted the principles embodied in it cannot be confined to Scotland, but must be extended to England. It is very easy to say that the House can decide on the Second or Third Reading as to whether they will accept the principle or not, because the question of how you put the principle into practice is decided in Committee. But now it is suggested that matters shall be settled in a Committee upstairs on which hon. Members interested may have no representation.
MR. MORTON: inquired what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying that there was any sort of intention to apply the Scottish Education Bill to England?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member can have followed the course of the debate yesterday, or he would have been aware that it was admitted by the Government themselves that the principles of the Bill before the House were such as should be applied to this country.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think anyone could have said that. What we said was that the main principles which we apply to Scotland we were prepared to apply to England also, but we committed nobody but ourselves.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. The right hon. Gentleman says he did not commit the House to such a declaration; but if the House accepts the Bill there is no distinction between the circumstances of England and Scotland upon which you can in the opinion of the Government advocate exceptional legislation for Scotland and refuse it to England. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He says he does not compromise the House but only the Government and himself by the declaration he makes. If the House accepts the Bill there is no distinction between the circumstances of England and Scotland upon which you can set up exceptional

909
legislation for Scotland and refuse it to England. It will be admitted that we may have a Bill confined to Scotland laying down certain principles and giving them particular application. But having once laid down those principles you could find no logical ground for refusing to England any demand for similar legislation. That being so, ought not English Members to be present in their proper proportion when this legislation is considered? They are to be put in a miserable minority on the Committee, where they will be always out-voted when discussing principles which may be applied to them and which may be put into a different form by somebody else. The right hon. Gentle man said Scotland had laws of its own. True. The marriage law of Scotland is different from that of England. I think it is a great misfortune to both England and Scotland as well as to individuals. But would an amendment of the Scottish marriage law be of no consequence to England? It might not be if there was no intermarriage between the Scottish and English people, but happily that is not the case. There is intermarriage. Supposing there was legislation with regard to the Moray Firth. That, I suppose, would be a Scottish measure to be decided by this Scottish Committee, but if it was a penal measure the penalties would be directed largely against people coming from other countries.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Second Reading would be passed by this House, and it would come back to this House in its other stages.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would come back, but we should not have the chance on Report of raising any particular point. If the Minister gave an unsatisfactory answer we should not be able to follow it up with adequate discussion. On Report it is not possible really to press points home without the co-operation of a considerable number of speakers. Then why is this proposal confined to Scotland? I dislike it; I think it is wrong and vicious ab initio, but the Government think it is good. But if it is good why is it not extended? The Prime Minister said he would have no objection to extend it to Wales, but the
910
Welsh had not enough business to keep a Committee going. I think if the right hon. Gentleman cultivates these different interests in different districts instead of cultivating the progressive work that now goes on, he will find that if the Welsh have not enough business to keep a Welsh Committee now they will have in a very short time. But what about English business? There is a good deal of English business. The right hon. Gentleman says that Scottish Members-complain that Scottish opinion is over-ridden by English opinion and English votes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of England? Why are Englishmen to be told that if the Welsh have any business they shall have a Committee of their own, that the Scottish shall have a Committee of their own, that if the Irish desire it they shall have a Committee, but that England is to be governed by the united voices of Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English Members, and that English questions may be decided by a majority of non-English opinion? I do not want to treat this matter in a Party spirit, but I cannot help reflecting that there have been times during which a Liberal Government was in power when it would have been extremely inconvenient to have had their English business referred to an English Committee, because such a procedure would have resulted in their being unable to carry any legislation at all. I dislike this proposal, and I say further that it would be a gross injustice to carry it through in the limited form proposed and to allow a minority of English men to be out-voted on ordinary English affairs. Can anyone conceive that this House is not to consider legislation as a whole, but to bring its mind to bear only on local legislation? The right hon. Gentleman says he is not aware that the Irish Members want a Committee of this kind. No, they want something different, and on another occasion we understand the Government is going to give it to them. Therefore we are to have one measure applied to Scotland and the same to Wales, if Wales can find work for it, a different measure applied to Ireland, and a third to England. It seems to me that we in the House of Commons ought to try to unite our interests as much as possible, to consider all questions in common, to

911
submit our questions to the decision of the House as a whole, and bow to the decision of the House as a whole. I hope I have not in any sense made a Party speech. I recognise the greatness of the issue involved, and how important it is that some improvement should be made in our procedure. I have even indicated the line which I think the House ought to take to seek a solution. I wish I could cordially support the proposals the Prime Minister has made, but unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared so to modify them as absolutely to change their character I cannot support him.
MR. ELLISsaid the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that their procedure needed great reform, but he thought the method proposed was not the way to do it. He feared the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the declaration of a very distinguished Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, on this subject. There were three aspects from which the consideration of the procedure of the House could be approached: the aspect of the supporters of the Government who were anxious to see the proposal carried through; that of hon. Gentlemen who sat in opposition who were not so anxious to see it go through; and, thirdly, the point of view of those who, when the House was in Committee, occupied the Chair. That had been his position for many years, years ago, and he should never forget the difference between the position now and when he occupied the Chair. He approached the question from a purely non-partisan point of view. To him the House of Commons was more than a place in which to advocate even Liberal views. It was part of our great Constitution, and whichever Party was in power the House of Commons should be the fitting instrument to carry out the will of the electors as expressed at general elections. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken and the House were perhaps not aware of the extraordinary weight of authority behind the proposal of the Prime Minister. He made bold to say that the proposal came with a greater weight of Parliamentary authority than almost any other proposal that had been
912
made during the last twenty years. Sir Erskine May formulated this very scheme in 1854 and developed it in an interesting article in the Edinburgh Review of that year. Two of Mr. Speaker's predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre—who made more reforms off his own bat, so to speak, than any Speaker who preceded him—and Mr. Denison, both expressed their approval of it. Nothing was done until 1882 when Mr. Gladstone rather tentatively set up two Standing Committees. Seven Bills only were referred to those Committees, of which four received the Royal Assent, and then the system slept for a number of years. Anyone who read the biography of Lord Randolph Churchill would see, in a remarkable letter to Lord Salisbury written in the autumn of 1885, Lord Randolph Churchill propounded very much this scheme, setting up Committees and giving them powers far beyond what was now proposed, because he suggested that the Report stage should also be dealt with by a Grand Committee. Of course nothing was done. In 1886 a Committee was set up by the Conservative Government when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was Leader of the House. Afterwards when the Liberal Government came into power Sir William Harcourt, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, set up the same Committee. The proposal now before the House was on all fours with the Committee set up by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Sir William Harcourt. The Hartington Committee in 1886 recommended—
"That every Public Bill after the Second Reading, except a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or a Bill for the confirmation of any Provisional Order, unless the House shall otherwise order, shall be referred to a Standing Committee of the Whole House."
And who constituted that Committee? It included Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Courtney, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Healy, Mr. Justin McCarthy, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Sexton, Mr. W. H. Smith, and others. Those names were a perfect galaxy of Parliamentary talent. He doubted very much whether they could find fifteen or sixteen other men of such great Parliamentary experience and calibre. Therefore the scheme came before the House

913
with the approval and on the initiative of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Sir William Harcourt, and the House agreed to it. There was a division taken on the word "every," and Mr. Sexton moved that it should only be when the House ordered. In the division the Amendment was negatived by twenty-one against five. Therefore the proposal now under discussion came before the House with all that exceptional authority behind it. It was made no less than twenty-one years ago, and why was it not carried out at that time? In the year 1888 Mr. W. H. Smith, who was Leader of the House, set up two Grand Committees and altered Standing Orders Nos. 45 to 50 to the form in which they stood at the present time. They had had some experience of those Grand Committees, for they had been sitting from the year 1888 to the year 1905, and they furnished very interesting Returns, one on the Motion of Lord Hugh Cecil and the other on his own Motion. He found that between 1888 and 1905 162 Bills were referred to Grand Committees, of which 157 got through Committee and 120 received Royal Assent. Those 120 Bills were a most valuable addition to the Statute-book. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, who had had considerable experience of Grand Committees, would admit that the work of those Committees when properly done was highly satisfactory. He had listened with considerable surprise to the description given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire as to what went on in those Committees and to his remarks in regard to faddists. He agreed that legislation should not emanate from either experts on the one side or faddists on the other, but it should be the outcome of the practical sober common sense of the Members of the House of Commons. That was what they got from these Committees, and they had done their work in the past in a most efficient way.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I made any charge against Grand Committees as they now exist. What I did say was that if you multiply Grand Committees you increase the strain on hon. Members. If you do that I fear you will not have the general sense of
914
the House represented on those Committees, and there will be a tendency for only those hon. Members who have a particular interest in the particular measure before the Grand Committee to attend its sittings.
MR. ELLISsaid he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid that they would increase the strain upon hon. Members. If that we so he would not be in favour of the proposals now before them. He was perfectly satisfied that the adoption of the scheme would not have that effect. The figures quoted by the Prime Minister disposed of the chimera of being over-burdened with work. He thought all the Committees necessary and all the necessary work could be manned by 670 Members. The figures absolutely demonstrated that the Committee work of the House was not too great a strain. Perhaps he would be pardoned for saying that he spoke with more years of experience than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, and he was perfectly satisfied that the fear of this proposal causing a greater strain upon hon. Members was entirely unfounded. He was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken too highly of the best features of the Committee work of the House. After all, it must be borne in mind that a Committee of the Whole House to which every one of the 670 Members could attend as he pleased was a comparatively modern institution. Grand Committees were the old form of doing the business of Parliament. He did not think that any system could be worse than a Committee of the Whole House where Members came in and went out not knowing what was the question before the Committee; altogether the work of the House of Commons was never seen to less advantage than during the great straggling Committee stages. The real question was, did they wish the House to be made an efficient instrument for transacting public business? Did they admit that it was perfectly impossible for the whole House to deal individually with every Bill that came before it? The great difficulty in the House of Commons had always been to know what it could not deal with. The question was whether

915
they could increase the power of the House by setting up these Committees. He would like to quote some weighty words by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham who had always desired that the House should get through its business. Speaking in 1904 the right hon. Gentleman said—
"I wish to go back to those early days when Mr. Gladstone proposed his great scheme of Grand Committees. It appears to me that progress cannot be satisfactorily attained in legislation, in social reform, in all the work with which the House has to deal unless we secure some measure of delegation. I am in favour, therefore, putting aside for a moment the merits of this particular Bill, of a more general application to Committees of this House. We can have two or three or even more sitting at the same time, and we can, therefore, double or treble the work which the House may perform. If it is alleged, as it has been alleged, that in these Committees there is not sufficient arrangement for dealing with obstruction, then I for one will be perfectly prepared to vote for such an alteration of the rules as will give the Chairman of these Committees greater power."
From what he had said it would be seen that the proposal of the Government had the highest authority behind it. All experience was in favour of it. He was perfectly satisfied that it would not increase but lighten the burden of the House. It would be the best method of advancing business and of enabling them to transact the work which the nation expected of them. Therefore he most cordially supported the proposal which the Government had made.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not desire to say more than a few words with reference to the criticisms made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of the proposal to create a Scottish Committee. If Scottish Members asked for a Scottish Committee he would support them in their claim, and if, as he rather anticipated, their claim would go to the extent of having it composed exclusively of Scottish Members, that was a claim which he would also support. So far as Ireland was concerned, the question had been raised whether they would ask for an Irish Committee. He might say they would not. What they would ask for was something entirely different, and for his own part, under existing circumstances, he would make no claim whatever for an Irish Committee under this scheme. Having
916
said so much with reference to the Scottish Committee, and expressed his want of sympathy with the criticisms of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point, he would like to say that in regard to much that was contained in the earlier portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he found himself entirely in sympathy. He thought many of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were strong and cogent, and he had heard no answer to them in the speech which had just been delivered. The right hon. Gentleman had made a somewhat startling statement when he said that they had plenty of time in which to do their business. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman meant that the House of Commons had adequate time for the transaction of such business as he and his Party thought they should perform. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as the representative of a Party which was notoriously not in favour of very considerable legislation. He remembered that on one occasion Mr. Disraeli said that in his opinion Parliament was only useful during the recess. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire probably thought there was adequate time for such business as he desired to see transacted. He would like, however, to ask hon. Members who constituted the overwhelming majority of the House whether it was not their experience that there was a block of business in the House, and that there was an insufficient amount of time to deal with all those great social and other questions which they believed lay at the foundation of the future prosperity of the country. The Prime Minister had very clearly told the House that his proposal was only an experimental one, made with the object of giving new life and vigour to Parliament. It was the latest device for the purpose of enabling the House to perform an impossible task. He had for many years taken a keen interest in all matters connected with Parliamentary procedure. He had been present at many debates on the question and had taken part in most of them. He did not think there was anything more pathetic than the spectacle which the House had presented consistently for the last twenty-six years of endeavouring year after year to amend its procedure so as to enable it to per for

917
an absolutely impossible task. Since he came into the House he had seen the procedure revolutionised, and each proposal to change it had been sustained by the arguments they had heard that evening. It was simply an experiment to see whether new life and vigour could not be given to this Assembly, and the machinery made to work more efficiently. Everyone of the Amendments which had been carried by the House in the hope that they would achieve that object had failed, and the accumulation of business had increased year by year, and admittedly in the whole of the last quarter of a century there had never been such a block of business waiting to be transacted as there was at the present moment. What changes had he witnessed in the House? First of all, the closure was introduced in order to prevent individual Members from speaking too long. Then. as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded them, closure by compartments was introduced, whereby the discussion of great measures could be put an end to, and sometimes scores of clauses passed without any discussion at all. Then a proposal was made for curtailing the discussion in Committee of Supply. The old cherished tradition that it was the right of the House of Commons to discuss grievances when Supply was under consideration was practically put an end to by the Supply Resolution, which allocated a certain number of days to the discussion of Supply and provided that all Supply not discussed at a given date, sometimes amounting to millions and tens of millions, should be voted under the guillotine without any discussion at all. Then came the institution of Grand Committees. He well remembered how it was said that Grand Committees would lead to such a decentralisation of work that the Parliamentary machine would work smoothly. They knew that so far as effecting that object was concerned, the institution of those Committees had been an absolute failure. He did not say that they had not done good work, but from the point of view of relieving the pressure of work in the House they had failed, because that pressure was greater to-day than ever. Then they had had constant
918
Autumn sessions. In his opinion six months' hard work in the House was about as much as human nature could stand. He was speaking as one who always attended the sittings of the House, and for a man who practically lived in the House when it was sitting he held that six months was quite as much as human nature could stand. As they were all aware, they had again and again exceeded that limit, and the House had sat for eight or ten months, and still the pressure of work continued to be as great as ever. Every one of the changes which had been made had been supported by the same old arguments. They were told there was a glut of business, that the Parliamentary machine could no work, and that the particular proposal under discussion would give new life and vigour, and enable the machine to get through its task. At the end of it all, they were now being asked to discuss the latest device for making the machine to work. He had risen to say that in his judgment the present proposal, if carried, would have precisely the same fate as every one of those which he had enumerated. It would not make the Parliamentary machine work, and it would not put new life and vigour into that Assembly, because it was a reform going upon entirely wrong lines. He was afraid that if he attempted to go into the merits of the proposal he would have to agree with many of the criticisms made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proposed Committees were to have great and serious legislative proposals put before them. It should not be forgotten that former Grand Committees were only instituted to deal with non-controversial measures, and he thought everybody would agree that wherever that principle had been departed from, and a controversial measure had been sent to one of those Committees, the result had not been satisfactory. Now there was to be a change, and four Committees were to be appointed instead of two, and great and necessarily controversial proposals were to be sent to them. If those Committees were adequately to perform their work they must have upon them the leading Members of the House. The late Chancellor

919
of the Exchequer had spoken of the necessity of the Government being represented. He ventured to say that no great legislative proposal could be seriously considered by one of those Committees unless the Government was represented by some of its most important members, who could sit upon the Committees from hour to hour and moment to moment in the name of the whole Government. Similarly the Opposition would have to be represented, and, in fact, all the more efficient and active Members of the House would have to be present. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last to say that the strain would not be too great, but he held that if Members representing the Government, the Leaders of the Opposition, and the leading men in other quarters of the House had to come down at eleven o'clock every day, work on until four in these Committees, and afterwards come to the House and take part in public business until eleven o'clock at night, the strain would be intolerable and the system would break down. They would not and could not attend. Any measure passed in Grand Committee in the absence of such Members would, of course, on Report be discussed at just as great length as if it had been in Committee of the Whole House. The only saving of time would arise from the fact that Members could speak only once. He did not think that would make for the saving of time under the conditions which he had indicated. If a great controversial measure came down from Grand Committee for discussion on Report the fact that each Member could speak only once would not save time. He did not believe that the scheme would take away from the ken of the House the details of great legislative proposals. These details must be discussed in the House. He did not believe if the proposal was carried into effect it would seriously shorten the discussion on Bills or seriously lighten the load of business which rested on the House. That business was growing by leaps and bounds. His firm conviction was that the only remedy for the admitted block of business and the failure of the machine to work was to be found in a real system of decentralisation. The House was trying to do impossible
920
things. It was trying in one Chamber in a limited number of months every year to perform the work of at least five legislative assemblies. From day to day the most extraordinary variety of work was thrown on that Assembly. One day they would be discussing a great matter affecting hundreds of millions of people in one of the great dependencies; the next day, or perhaps the same day, they would be called upon to discuss the making of a sewer in Rathmines. On the following day they would be called upon to discuss some great educational problem affecting the people of England, and on the same day they would perhaps be asked to discuss some small trivial question, affecting the local government of Scotland or Wales. That was the absurdity of the present system, and no rules which they could devise would really free the House. What was wanted was a system of decentralisation. If Grand Committees were to be given the management of the local affairs of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, he would say that they were on the right path, but so long as in that Assembly they attempted at one and the same time to discuss great English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish problems they could not by any new rules prevent the confusion and chaos which existed. In the programme of the present session there were the Army Bill, the Budget Bill, the Small Holdings Bill, the Licensing Bill, Bills dealing with the Government of Ireland and with the question of higher education in Ireland. He would ask any sensible man in the House whether he could honestly say that it was possible, no matter how they changed the rules, in six months for the same Chamber to transact all that legislative business in addition to the necessary financial business of the year. It could not be done. From the experience of many years past they knew that not more than one really great Bill had any chance of being passed into law in one session, and even that could not be done except by closure by compartments, the use of which was a standing invitation to noble Lords in another place to exercise their nefarious powers. He did not think that the debate should pass without his entering a protest. He remembered that when a great man in

921
that House was accused of always making the same protest he replied "Yes, it is the same, but it is true." And so on every occasion of this kind he raised his voice in protest. He had been pointing out for years that these petty changes of procedure would not effect the object of the Government. As years went on the business of the House would become greater and greater, and the machine would work more and more slowly, and the only hope was in such a decentralisation of purely local business as would leave the Imperial Parliament with its hands free to deal with those Imperial questions which alone ought to occupy its attention. That was the only direction from which relief could come. If a division were taken he would not vote against the Government, but he would not vote for it. He did not believe there was the remotest chance of the change effecting its object. If it came to a square issue, for or against, he would mark his utter want of belief in the efficiency of the proposals of the Government by abstaining from voting.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he wanted as Chairman of the Committee of Selection to explode the idea that there was any difficulty in getting Members to act on the Committees. There were in the House a large number of young, eager, and able Members who were all anxious for work. He had great confidence that they would always have a sufficient number of Members to sit on these Committees. Hon. Members should realise that the House was not merely a pleasant club, but the workshop of the nation. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was mistaken in supposing that there would be any difficulty in getting Members to act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have the impression that Government measures would have precedence in the Grand Committees. That was not his view. He imagined that the Bills would come on for consideration in the order in which they were sent upstairs. On behalf of the Committee of Selection he welcomed the proposal to have four Grand Committees. In the House, in the smoking-room, and in the dining-room, he was often approached by Members clamouring for work. Sometimes they said they were new Members and
922
had not been put on a Committee yet. There were 270 Members in the House to whom the Committee of Selection had not been able to give any work at all.
*MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he spoke on this question entirely irrespective of Party politics, for on whichever side of the House he had sat he had always taken exactly the same attitude as to the kind of work which should be referred to Grand Committees. While he was anxious to support any scheme which would expedite and improve the legislative work of the House, he believed the proposals now made by the Government would not have that effect. He would, therefore, oppose them as he did when they were before the Procedure Committee. The Prime Minister had said that the proposal was an experimental measure. If the right hon. Gentleman insisted on carrying his Resolution, he hoped it would only be as a Sessional Order. They had had from the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division a very interesting history of the manner in which these proposals had arisen; and he was somewhat surprised at the conclusion at which that right hon. Gentleman had arrived. Quoting the Report of the Committee which sat on procedure in 1886, the right hon. Gentleman had used extremely eulogistic language as to the great and important authority which lay behind that Report; but he should have added that there were vital differences between what was now suggested and that which was presented in the Report of 1886. In that Report four Committees were to be set up, not mere microcosms of the House of Commons, but the whole House was to be divided into four Committees, which naturally carried with it the corollary that those Committees were not to sit during the ordinary time at which the House itself sat, and that the hon. Members who constituted those Committees should be relieved of sitting on Private Bill Committees. It must be remembered, however, that within two years of presenting that Report the right hon. Gentleman came forward with a proposition, which was accepted by the House, reverting to the original precedent of 1882, on which they had

923
been acting ever since. But they had had a later pronouncement on the question of Grand Committees. In 1905 the Chairmen's Panels, including the late Sir James Fergusson, whose loss they all deplored, formally considered the position of the House with regard to Bills sent to Grand Committees, and they unanimously found that it was not desirable to refer to them Bills which aroused strong Party feeling or dealt with matters of high controversy. And who was the Gentleman who presented that Report? It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottinghamshire.
MR. ELLIS: thought that the hon. Gentleman should go on to refer to the next paragraph in the Report of that Committee.
*MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he was bound to admit that in the next paragraph the Report went on to say that if the Standing Committees had to deal with Bills of the nature described, then the power of closure should be given to the Chairmen. At the time he himself accepted the power of closure somewhat reluctantly, although in a better form than that described by the Prime Minister. He had had a certain amount of experience during the nine sessions in which he had acted on the Chairmen's Panel, and in the whole of that time he had never used, nor desired to use, the power of the closure. Therefore, he could not say that it would enable them to get very much further with their business. He thought that the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division did not rely on the power of the closure very much, because in 1902 he stated that he was an anti-closure man and that the use of the closure marked the incapacity of those who advocated its employment. He thought that the extremely good work which had been done by Grand Committees was often forgotten, but if the list of that work was looked at it would be found that it was a particular class of work. During the discussion of last year it was always assumed that great measures on which the life of a Government depended should be reserved for the consideration of the Whole House, and he thought that the House ought to
924
have a clear and distinct statement on that point. If large measures of that kind were to be reserved for the consideration of the whole House, he did not think there would be any saving of time. On the other hand, while Grand Committees were unsuitable for dealing with large measures, because they did not represent the true feeling of the House, they were too large for dealing with Departmental Bills or small Bills relating to a single point. They often had on the Order Paper of the House, later in the session, a large number of Departmental Bills, usually small measures in themselves, but for which time could not be found owing to the attention of the House being centred on one great subject. If those Bills were sent to Grand Committees, as in the case of the Isle of Man Customs Bill, the Committee of Selection would have to appoint fifteen members, and the Chairman would have to sit in the Grand Committee room upstairs in the hope that a quorum would attend. If they did come the matter would be settled in two minutes, but if a quorum did not turn up, the time of those who did put in an appearance would be wasted. He feared the same kind of thing might happen in regard to every class of Bill, whether large or small, controversial or uncontroversial. To send all classes of Bills to the same Committee showed that the Government had not considered the matter deeply, and the proposal which he intended to bring forward later, that the Bills should be sifted out by a representative Committee, would, he thought, be better than the proposal which the Government brought forward. They should have some better assurance that this scheme did represent the final consideration of how the Government meant to proceed with measures of legislation. They were told that at present they had the opportunity of discussing matters on the Report stage, but they could not forget that last year the guillotine was applied to the Report stage of a Government Bill before the measure had ever been considered by the House. If that was so, how could they be sure that they would have that opportunity of free discussion on Report which would give every Member an

925
opportunity of expressing his opinion? There was one class of Bill left out from the operation of the Resolution. Finance Bills were excluded; but there were other Bills which were practically money Bills, which were not to be considered by the House in Committee. What did that mean? We had two Houses of Parliament, and it meant that certain Bills, if they were not considered in that House, could also not be considered in another place. Many Bills would go to the Grand Committees which could not be considered in the other House, because they were money Bills, and the only opportunity for their consideration would be in the Grand Committee. These considerations ought to be taken into account before they proceeded to deal with the proposal before the House. It was said that it would facilitate legislation and stimulate Members to increased exertions. The suggestion that hon. Members wanted stimulating at that early stage of the new Parliament was a peculiar one, and he believed that the attendance in the House showed that there was not great keenness on the part of hon. Members in regard to the work of the House, especially in matters which concerned the Army and Navy. In fact, in Committee of the Whole House on an important measure, far greater interest was shown than at other times. The Prime Minister had suggested that they would get rid of the discussion of the details of measures of legislation in the House, and make the time of the sitting of the House a comparatively easy matter—that they would not have so much to do, and would go to bed earlier than they did at present. That was a rather remarkable proposition when they remembered that legislation was to be conducted during hours which were, to a large extent, outside the hours in which the House sat, namely, between eleven and four; and yet that plea was put forward by a Government which said only last year that it was impossible for that House to deal with its legislative work at two o'clock, and it was necessary to meet later at a quarter to three, because, it was not able to get Members to attend at the earlier hour. What were the proposals of the Government with regard to unofficial private
926
Members' Bills. There were only fourteen or fifteen Fridays on which private Members could pass the Second Reading of Bills; then under this Rule there was a special Grand Committee to consider them, and at the end there were only two Fridays with ten hours of Parliamentary time to take the later stages. Was not that a waste of time and an unfair burden? Those Bills were very often drafted by private draughts men, and, not having had the assistance of a Minister in the Grand Committee, they must consider in minute detail those Bills on the Report stage. He confessed that he did not think such a course was fair to private Members, or that they would gain very much by the process. As to the proposed Scottish Committee, he wished to know whether it was intended that while Scottish Members were to sit on that Grand Committee they were also to sit on other Committees. They ought to know the full intentions of the Government on this matter, because, as it at present appeared, the Scottish Members would be able to produce a large amount of definite expert opinion in reference to each Bill, while the fifteen English Members would practically be a permanent body, who would sit for the whole session, before whom the Scottish Members would plead their case, on either side, and upon whom the people interested in the measure would be dependent. Such a system was an absolute reversal of the intentions of Parliament in establishing the Grand Committee system, and as the House gradually resolved itself more and more into groups, and it became increasingly difficult to make any Grand Committee of sixty-nine Members or upwards truly representative to consider particular legislation, so would it be much more difficult to select fifteen Members of a thoroughly representative character. It would be very difficult to make a Grand Committee, as at present constituted, really representative of the House, and therefore their opinion would lose its effect, and would not have the amount of influence necessary to ensure that the legislation concerned should be carried out without further debate in the House. For himself he could not accept most of the suggestions put forward; he thought the Government had taken the wrong direction. He

927
did not think the Committee stage should be left to the sole discretion of the Government of the day. It was not de sir able to send Bills of a large character to Grand Committees, and he did not believe that the Government would increase the efficiency of the House by introducing the complications of closure which they proposed. He did not think the scheme would have the effect they desired, and he was sorry the Government had thought fit to bring it forward.
*MR. CROMBIEsaid he wished to thank the righthon. Gentleman, on behalf of all Scottish Members, for including the Scottish Committee in his scheme. The reasons given for the opposition to the scheme were entirely mistaken reasons. Objection was taken on the ground that it was part of a national scheme. Hon. Gentlemen opposite described it as separation, and apparently looked upon it as an instalment of Home Rule, and objected to it on that principle. He protested against any such view being taken. It was perfectly true that some Scotsmen held certain national views, and many believed that Scottish business would be better done if it was managed by some local body instead of by the Imperial Parliament. But that was not the question. The majority of Scottish Members were willing to accept the fifteen Englishmen on the Committee. He approached the proposal as a part of a general scheme to case the present congestion of Parliament. It was not a national question. But if Grand Committees were to be set up there must be some classification of the business. There was already the classification of Bills on law and on trade, but there was one body of work that came before the House which was entirely distinct and that was Scottish work. Not only was it a distinct class, but it was more neglected than any other work in the House. Because each question in Scotland had to be dealt with by a separate Bill, and Scotland being a small nationality with a small population, she had no chance with English Bills treating with the same subjects. Those were dealt with, but the Scottish Bills set aside. When a Scottish Bill came before the House who
928
sat and listened to it? Scotsmen exclusively. He was particularly sorry for the little body of fifteen English martyrs who were to sit on this Scottish Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said there would be no English Committee, but that was not so. There were to be four Committees altogether, and assuming that two were sitting at the same time, all the Scottish Members would be on the Scottish Committee, and would not in any way contaminate the other Committee, which would consist solely of English and Irish Members, and the latter would not be more than fifteen, which would only correspond with the number of Englishmen on the Scottish Committee. The scheme was part of a scheme of devolution of the business of the House, and practical Scotsmen regarded it with favour because it would help both England and Scotland.
*MR. JOWETT: supported the proposal of the Prime Minister. The idea of the details of a Bill being considered by a Committee of 670 Members was too ridiculous for words. That was not only his view, but also the view of a distinguished official of the House. Sir Courtenay Ilbert said before the Committee on Procedure he did not think that any one defended the existing system under which Bills were passed through Committee of the Whole House; that no reasonable person would sit down and deliberately suggest such a method of procedure. No words could be a stronger condemnation of the present system, and many Members of the House would approve of the opinion of Sir Courtenay Ilbert. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had rather thrown cold water on the proposals of the Government, and he could quite understand his taking every opportunity to show the absolute impossibility of governing the whole of the three Kingdoms from that House. But that was no reason why the best should not be done to make the House of Commons a working institution. No man could pretend that as at present constituted it was a working Assembly, so far as private Members were concerned. He submitted that the House had a somewhat demoralising effect on private

929
Members, who were not allowed to do the business for which they were sent there. Month after month Members willing and anxious to take part in public business, and sit on Committees, were reduced to sitting in the House listening to discussions conducted largely by right hon. Gentlemen on the two front benches, and those who sat in the part from which he was speaking were often not able even to hear. He did not think it was fair not to allow private Members to do what they were sent to Parliament to do. He certainly welcomed the prospect of be rang able to take some part in the business of that House. It seemed to him that the Rules of Procedure under which they suffered would not have been tolerated so long if they had not suited the convenience of the legal fraternity. If one took up the Amendment Paper in regard to any Bill one saw that the procedure of the House was on lines that favoured the methods of legal Members. For instance, the Order Paper of that day containing Amendments to the Prime Minister's proposal, included the following—
"Line 1, after the first 'a' insert 'Government;' "
"Leave out 'the' to 'commit,' in line 9, and insert 'Business Committee may;' "
and so on. It was like a Chinese puzzle. There was neither sense nor reason in it. It was not necessary, and he did not think any other public body would tolerate it. Things should be put plainly so that a plain man could understand them, instead of his having to spend his whole time in solving such word puzzles. He remembered that on one clause of the Education Bill, in order to effect a change in it, thirteen separate Amendments were put down on the Paper. On other occasions private Members were expected to follow intelligently Amendments that were not in print. They were read from the Table, and most Members had no opportunity of knowing what their terms meant. That might be called business, but he did not think it was, nor did other Members who were responsible for it. Lawyers were present to represent their constituencies in the ordinary way, and these matters of drafting should be dealt with by experts who were appointed
930
for the purpose and could offer their advice without prejudice and with the confidence of everybody. He not only agreed with the Prime Minister in his making four instead of two Standing Committees, but he would go a step further and suggest that in connection with every one of those Committees there should be an expert draughtsman in order to render Members independent of the lawyers. He would go even further than that—as would other Members, in increasing numbers—and submit that they should take part not only in the legislative, but also in the executive, part of the work of the House. It was surely a scandal that private Members should have no share in executive business. At present they had simply power to ask a Question, which might or might not be answered, or to make a speech, if by chance they caught the Speaker's or the Chairman's eye. It seemed to him that the various Government Departments had grown so big that Members representing all branches and sections of the House should be associated with them. That was a view which would grow as time went on, and as they got an increased number of adherents to the Committee system they would find the system extended to the executive part of the work. They welcomed the proposals of the Government, because in all probability they would give Members a better opportunity for taking part in the business they were sent to do. For his part he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the step he was taking, which, in his opinion, was much needed in the interests of public business, as well as in the interest of private Members.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that he would be sorry to stand for a moment in the way of any well-considered plan to make the Parliamentary wheels run more smoothly, but he thought it was a little unfortunate that they could not consider the procedure on Bills as a whole, and not merely the procedure after they had passed the Second Reading. There were two methods of saving time—either to revise the whole procedure, or to revise a small part of it, as they were doing now. If they

931
adopted the former and more desirable method, a great deal of time could be saved without the necessity of enlarging the system of Grand Committees. He suggested that the first reading stage of a Bill should be purely formal, both for private and Government Bills. When the Bill was ordered to be printed an exposition of its nature and of its principles should be furnished with it, as was done in many foreign legislatures. That would save the whole of the proceedings on the First Reading. The proposition before them now was that after the Second Reading the Bill should go to Grand Committee, but that would not necessarily save time, because Members would turn the Report stage into the former Committee stage when the Bill came downstairs. He would remind the House that when the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill came from the Standing Committee, page after page of Amendments were put down on the Report stage.
LORD ROBERT CECILreminded the hon. Member that that Bill was sent to a Select Committee and then came to the House. It did not go to Grand Committee at all.
*MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid that if the reference had been to a Grand Committee they might still have had a discussion on the Report stage similar to the discussion in Committee. He was very much interested in the Census of Production Bill, which dealt with a subject that he had studied for many years, and he had a Motion on the Paper with regard to it, which he was unfortunately prevented from moving. The Bill was sent to a Committee upstairs, on which he did not serve, not having been invited to do so. The result was that the Report stage was the first time he encountered the Bill in the House, and then he and many other Members around him were afraid to make speeches lest they endangered the passage of a measure in which they were deeply interested. If that was called reform, he could not agree with the application of the word. Then there was danger in connection with the class of Member seeking to serve on the Committees. The word "faddists" had been used, but in regard to these Committees he would suggest that
932
there was great danger of special interests seeking to be represented upon them. If it was found that on some Committee a certain interest would be attacked Members would be found endeavouring to get themselves placed on that Committee in order to make their contentions heard in a way that could not be achieved in the House itself; because the value of a Member's vote was only one in 670 in the House, whereas it was one in eighty in Committee. Therefore, they would get interests over-represented upon the Committees. His hon. friend who had just sat down had pleaded for more work for private Members, and he joined hands with him in making that plea, but what did the new proposals do for the useful men of the House who had to earn their livings? The House met at a quarter to three and sat till eleven, and often later. Supposing a Committee sat from eleven o'clock in the morning until prayer time, and then the Members who composed it went on in the House until eleven o'clock at night, and frequently until the next morning: was it possible to give proper time and attention to business carried on in that way? Was it proposed to do important work in Committee, and to occupy the time between three o'clock and eleven o'clock on less important matters in the House? It seemed to him that the private Member would find himself in the dilemma of having either to give his time in the morning or in the afternoon. Many Members were most earnestly desirous of doing useful work, but they would find themselves utterly unable to contend with Parliamentary duties lasting twelve or fifteen hours a day. He had protested against twelve or fifteen hours a day for 'busmen, and he was therefore entitled to protest against these hours. Then there was the semi-secret character of the Committees to consider. Members in Committees were not reported officially as in the House, and if these proposals were adopted, he submitted that there should be an official record of the proceedings upstairs; otherwise, those proceedings would tend to become secret, and that would not be at all in the public interest. He submitted that it would be better if the Government came forward with a

933
proposal relating to the whole of the procedure of the House on the various stages. He earnestly asked the House to consider whether, after the First and Second Reading stages, some business Committee with Mr. Speaker as Chairman, could not allot time, as suggested by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the remaining stages of Bills according to their importance. He asked them to consider whether they would not gain more time, with a larger measure of efficiency, in that way than by the proposals of the Prime Minister, and at the same time enable every Member to take a proper interest in the affairs of the House and of Committees of the House.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid he did not admire in every respect the procedure of the House. He quite admitted that there were defects; but he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that the House wholly failed to discharge its duties. It seemed to him that many of those duties were discharged well enough. But in considering the subject in a general way it was necessary to remember that the House had very divergent classes of duties to perform. It was a great mistake to suppose that the House was solely a legislative machine. That seemed to him to be a fundamental error. The House, in the first place, had administrative and even judicial duties, and it discharged them extremely badly. If the Government had come forward with proposals for improving the machinery of Private Bill procedure, he agreed that much might have been said for very drastic changes in that respect. The made in which the House dealt with Private Bills was little better than a scandal. The procedure was constantly used by hon. Members who desired to put forward some political proposal, or some sectional or even personal desire; it was used as a means of putting undue and illegitimate pressure on the promoters of such Bills; and if any means could be devised for turning the business connected with Private Bills into a really judicial proceeding, it would be a great improvement. But that was not the proposal before the House. The hon. Member below the gangway
934
seemed to think there should be something like the Committees, he presumed, appointed by the National Convention at the time of the French Revolution, which had the supervision of the administration of the country. He could not conceive any proposal with less to recommend it. It certainly would not conduce to the rapid administration of anything. His own experience of a Committee was that it was always a great deal worse than its best member and very often worse than its worst member, for administrative purposes. He would rather trust to a single man for administrative purposes subject to impeachment or dismissal from his office if he made a mistake, than he would trust the most able committee ever constituted. But when they passed from the administrative duties of the House and came to its legislative duties, a great distinction must be made. There were the deliberative duties of the House and there were the actual legislative duties. He admired mainly, if he might respectfully say so, the deliberative faculties of the House. He thought it was by far the best place in the country for discussing and examining any proposal, whether in the form of a Bill or any other form—he was inclined to say the best in the world. But let them be careful to remember that there was not that sharp distinction between the principles and details of a measure which might be thought. They could not discuss the principle of a measure without also discussing the way in which that principle was to be carried out, and yet it was the way in which a measure was to be carried out that really mattered. Let them take almost all the great proposals that were before the House last session. On the broad principles of a great number of them all Members of the House were more or less agreed. If they were to write down the theses of what was desired in reference to the Land Tenure Bill or the Education Bill of last year, they would find a very general agreement. But when it came to details, how general principles should be carried out, they would find that a real difference of opinion commonly existed. It was, therefore, quite a delusion to

935
suppose that they could divide sharply the discussion that took place on the Second Reading of a Bill and the discussion in Committee. It was quite true that they might have discussions on unimportant matters in Committee, but many of the most important and most valuable discussions were those which took place on particular aspects of a question in Committee, or when a particular set of words were put before the House, to be accepted as part of the legislation of the country. That was the time when in his judgment the House had real power of dealing with a subject, and when the deliberations of the House were most valuable. When they came to the actual legislative work of the country, he agreed that it was very bad. He meant by legislation the actual construction of Acts of Parliament, which he agreed must be bad in any large Committee, but it was bad not only because of the genius of the House, but much more because of the controversial character of the measures submitted to it. The real truth was that when they had a controversial measure, even if they had only eighty Members discussing it, they would have a vast number of different opinions, many ill-digested, and it would be impossible to get the necessary real and concentrated attention on matters of drafting and so on. That difficulty would be just the same in a Grand Committee of seventy or eighty members as it was in Committee of the Whole House. They would not find substantial difference in the actual legislative work of the House. Therefore, in his judgment, the proposal of the Government would destroy the best part of the work of the House, namely, the deliberative part when the attention of the House was concentrated on definite proposals. A good deal had been said about the difficulty of manning the various Committees. He shared to the full the apprehensions which had been expressed on that point. He did not think it would be in the least possible for members of the Government to attend the Committees in such a way as really to supervise the work; and their experience of the Report stage of the Land Tenure Bill, one of the worst drafted measures that ever passed the House, did not encourage the belief that a
936
really controversial measure could be dealt with adequately and properly by a system of Grand Committees, and it certainly discouraged the House from thinking that, even with respect to two Grand Committees, the Government were at present able to give sufficient attention and guidance to their work to ensure that it should be satisfactory to the House when it came downstairs.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, further proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

COMMITMENTS TO PRISON FOR DEBT.
*MR. PICKERSGILLrose to call attention to the large and constantly increasing number of commitments to prison for debt by orders of County Courts; and to move, "That the present powers of committing to prison for non-payment of a debt ought to be restricted." He said that the number of persons committed to prison for non-payment of debt, by order of the County Courts, had steadily increased within recent years. The figures were in 1899, 7,867; in 1900, 7,899; in 1901, 8,494; in 1902, 9,530; in 1903, 10,544; and in 1904, 11,096. There had thus been a steadily progressive increase during those years, the increase in 1904 being 50 per cent. on the number in 1899. Apparently the law was put in operation in a very different way in different parts of the country, or, in other words, a very different standard of the conditions which justified imprisonment seemed to be adopted by different Judges. At Leicester the number of plaints in 1904 was 15,000 and seventy-seven persons were imprisoned, and at Brighton there were 9,000 plaints and thirty-nine commitments. On the other hand, at Rotherham there were 13,000plaints and 408 commitments, and at Hull there were 14,000 plaints and 322 commitments. There was a similar disparity between one circuit and another. For instance, in the Monmouth Circuit there were 25,000 plaints and only twenty-one commitments, whereas in the Suffolk Circuit there were 16,000 plaints and 224 commitments. In some districts one

937
defendant in every 1,200 was imprisoned, while in other districts the proportion was one in sixty. Who mainly benefited by the present system of imprisonment for debt? His answer was tallymen, money-lenders, and that class of sharks to whom certain tradesmen sold their debts at about a shilling in the £. He had heard of a case in which a book hawker gave credit for two guineas for a family Bible to a servant girl sixteen years of age. He did not wish the House to understand that the servant girl was sent to prison. When a working man's wife was induced to buy jewellery or trinkets on credit she concealed from her husband what she had done, and when the county court notice was delivered she was able to conceal it also. In some instances it might actually happen that the first knowledge the husband had that there was any debt was when he was arrested. Who were the victims of the system? In the main this was a system of collecting debts from the wage-earning classes, although tradesmen were affected to a certain extent. No doubt he would be told that before an order of commitment was made the Judge gave the debtor a chance of paying by instalments. That was perfectly true, but what a county court Judge did was to ask what a man's wages were, and then to estimate what amount he could spare out of his wages. It was perfectly obvious that that was a very unsatisfactory system, and that much oppression might unwittingly be committed under it. The treatment in prison of civil debtors under the present rules did not substantially differ from the treatment of criminals. He had heard a story of two prisoners who were exchanging confidences. One said to the other, "They gave me fourteen days for stealing a duck," and the other replied, "Oh! I got forty days for not paying for one." The present system was grossly unequal as between the man who owed a large sum and the man who owed a small sum. The former could make himself bankrupt and so rid himself of all his liabilities, but the man who owed a small sum could not do that. He believed he was right in saying that there were few civilised countries, if any, in which such a system prevailed. He was told that it
938
did not prevail in Scotland, and he believed he was correct in stating that it did not prevail in the United States, France, or Germany. The present law and practice in this country encouraged the pernicious system of credit and the growth of firms whose main business it was to tempt poor people to borrow money at ruinous rates of interest, or to buy articles which they did not want, and which they certainly could not afford to purchase. His own inclination was to advocate the abolition of imprisonment for debt altogether, but it might be that public opinion in this country was not yet ripe for that drastic reform. He was therefore anxious that the gravest evils should be got rid of, and, as he desired to carry along with him those who were not willing to go the whole way, his Resolution suggested that there were cases in which the present powers might be continued. They might be retained for debts incurred by fraud and dishonesty and for wilful and malicious injuries to property. The Attorney-General had stated in reply to a question that the Lord Chancellor had given the subject most sympathetic consideration. In answer to a supplementary question which he had put, the Attorney-General said he quite agreed that the evil was great and that some change was necessary. That was in November last, but when the Lord Chancellor introduced a Bill dealing with County Courts he very much regretted to find that that Bill did not include any provision with regard to the question with which he was concerned that night. It was, however, evident that the Lord Chancellor was strongly in favour of dealing with the question, and Lord Ashbourne, Viscount Cross, and Lord James of Hereford also strongly advocated that the Bill should include some provision dealing with imprisonment for debt. He hoped it was not too late to induce the Government to deal with the question in the present Bill, and so bring about a valuable social reform which would be approved of by everyone except that class of firms who encouraged people to incur debts and buy goods which they really did not want, knowing that they had the screw of imprisonment by the power of the County Court Judge behind them. He begged to move.
MR. MACLEAN: in seconding the Motion, expressed the hope that he would carry with him the hon. and learned Solicitor-General when he stated the principle that no man should be deprived of his liberty except for an offence against the State. He knew that a man in England was not imprisoned for non-payment of a debt, but for contempt of Court. Still the fact remained that the system existed of collecting debts by means of the threat of imprisonment. Imprisonment for non-payment of a debt no longer obtained in any other civilised country in the world. Allusion had been made to the practice in Scotland. About twenty-five years ago imprisonment for debt in that country was absolutely abolished, with the result that a far sounder system of credit had grown up. That was what they desired to effect in England. It had been suggested that some difficulties might arise when a strike occurred, and credit was given by small traders to the men on strike; but he thought that the Labour Members would be found to be more or less in favour of the Resolution proposed by his hon. and learned friend. The present system set up a very harmful factor in social life, there having gradually grown up a system of business frankly based on the power of a creditor to send a debtor to prison. That system enabled a certain class of traders to make huge profits out of poor people. Last session it was stated in answer to a Question put in the House that a communication had been made to Judge Rentoul by a firm of traders stating that they did not wish that he should imprison more than sixty of their debtors in the course of a year. He believed that if imprisonment for debt were absolutely abolished that spurious and injurious system of doing business would die out. No one desired to prevent in any way honest tradesmen from getting payment of their due and proper debts. No doubt occasional hardships might occur if a Bill prohibiting imprisonment for debt were passed, but he thought that the balance of advantage would lie with the abolition of the existing system. There was not the least doubt that certain County Courts rules were extremely difficult to work out, as he could testify from his own experience, and the
940
County Courts were largely used by money lenders and the class of traders who imposed on stupid people by sales to them of sham jewellery.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the present powers of committing to Prison for non-payment of a Debt ought to be restricted."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
SIR WILLIAM BULL: admitted that the question was an extremely difficult one, but he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned Member had not had that experience of County Courts recently which he used to have. The effect of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member would be practically to do away with the present system of credit altogether. He would like to trace a not altogether imaginary case brought before a County Court. Mr. Jones borrowed from Mr. Smith a sum of £10 in October, 1905, for, as he said, the purpose of enabling him to finish a job he had in hand, promising to repay at Christmas time when the job was completed. Months passed and Smith was not paid, and at last, on January 1st, he decided to put in operation the process of the County Court. It took about a month after issuing process for the case to come on; more often in the London Courts it was six weeks before it could be heard, but the average time was a month. He therefore went and issued an ordinary summons for the recovery of the £10. It was returnable on February 1st, and when that date came he found that he was, say, 200 cases down the list. He was at the Court at ten o'clock; but the case did not come on before twelve. It was heard before the Registrar, and, the defendant announcing that it was defended it was put back till the afternoon. There were two or three heavy running-down cases, and the hearing of the case was adjourned till March 1st. Thus the defendant got another month by merely jumping up and saying that the case was defended. On March 1st, if plaintiff was lucky, he got his case heard, and he issued execution against the goods of the defendant. No return was made for a month—the bailiffs did not make a

941
return under that period—and then at the end of that month he found that the landlord was in for rent or that the goods did not belong to the defendant, so that the proceedings were abortive. The creditor issued a judgment summons in order to obtain the money by instalments, and that was returnable on May 1st. Summonses were very rarely served by the officer of the Court, and when the creditor was told in June that it had not been served he asked for leave to serve it himself, and did so. The summons was returnable in July, and then he applied for an order for payment by instalments. The Judge heard what the debtor's means were, and with a matter of £10 the creditor would get an order of 5s. a month. In the meantime the Long Vacation came on and nothing happened until October. The defendant did not pay the 5s. a month, and the creditor applied for another judgment summons which he got on November 1st, but was told that it could not be served. He then applied for another judgment summons which he served and which was returnable on January 1st. Up to this time he had not got a penny from his debtor and had spent many in Court fees. The judgment summons came on, and the defendant, if he was wily, turned up and said he could not pay 5s. a month as he was out of work or had illness in his family and so on. The result was that the judge reduced the order to 2s. a month, and no committal order could be issued as long as the 2s. a month was paid. When one sum of 2s. was due the Clerk of the County Court advised the creditor not to go to the expense of a warrant for 2s., but to wait until two or three instalments were overdue. In the following May as the instalments had not been paid, he obtained a warrant for the payment of the 6s., and if the man paid the 6s. he even then did not go to prison for seven days. If, however, the man did not pay, he could be sent to gaol not for not paying, but for contempt of court. From the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite it would appear that the County Court was a great engine of oppression upon the debtor, but as he had shown, it took tit least sixteen or seventeen months before a man could get 2s.
942
or 3s. out of his debtor if the latter knew how to get out of it. Sometimes he pleaded poverty; sometimes he was wise enough to stop away. That was the state of the case as it stood at the present time. He was not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Bethnal Green stated the number of committal orders or the actual number of persons who went to prison. [Mr. Pickersgill: The actual number who went to prison.] He quite admitted that in different County Courts the procedure entirely differed, and it was amusing to see when a Judge first came, if he was at all severe, how old plaints were raked up for the purpose of putting this law in force. Nobody knew better than the Registrar and the Judge of the County Court exactly the kind of debt which it was sought to recover, and the tallymen and credit drapers, simply to save their own time, put all their cases together and had twenty or thirty at a time. That class of trader knew very well that the very worst character they could get was a character for being severe and pressing for orders for committal. The Judge knew all the tallymen in his Court, and they were treated more severely than the ordinary tradesmen. But he would not like the House to get the idea that the County Court was entirely used by the tallyman and credit draper and by nobody else. He could assure the House that it was the ordinary trader who used the County Court, although he did not like to do so, as the intricacy of the forms and practice required skilled advice and it was not a profitable business for solicitors. Some very large firms had County Court clerks for the purpose of dealing with their County Court work. The County Courts were of very great use to persons engaged in trade and commerce, and he hoped the House would pause before it passed a Resolution to the effect proposed. A very great deal more evidence ought to be adduced before a system was abolished which had worked very well in the hands of the Judges who administered it. By long practice they could see whether a man was telling stories or was able to pay or not, and he thought there were few cases of hardship, and no great number of miscarriages of justice. He believed in 80 per

943
cent. of the committal orders the sums were paid before they were actually enforced.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. Robson,)said the hon. Member had given them some idea of the hardships of the existing system upon the creditor, who had all sorts of trouble and inconvenience for sixteen months to get 2s. a month out of a debtor. He would have thought that that was a condemnation of the existing system. In 1869 Parliament intended to abolish imprisonment for debt, but it left one door open. Debtors were no longer imprisoned for debt, but for failing to comply with the order of the Court. Such an order was not made unless there was some proof that the debtor either had, or had had since the judgment was made, means of satisfying the judgment. In form that rule was applicable to all classes. In effect it operated against the poorer industrial class alone. In the case of a middle-class debtor, the creditor proceeded against the goods of the debtor, and if an execution did not satisfy the claim no further proceedings were taken as a rule. But in the case of a working man debtor, the creditor did not look to the goods. The only substantial asset of such a debtor was his wages. They were brought under the law by an order for instalments, and if the instalments were not paid the debtor was sent to prison. Every one would agree that that was a heavy penalty to pay, seeing that it fell almost exclusively on those who possessed the smallest means. But the matter did not lie absolutely between a creditor and a debtor, or between a body of creditors and a large number of debtors. It was a matter which touched in many aspects the interests of the community at large. The existence of this remedy had created competition among tradesmen for credit business. That credit business resulted in large losses or in that kind of tedious, costly, and unsatisfactory litigation of which they had heard. Those losses must be met by putting them on to the price of the goods generally, so that the community as a whole as well as the individual debtor paid more for their goods owing to the existence of this costly and mischievous habit. There was
944
also a habit among certain tradesmen of keeping a sort of "hanging gale" over customers; they kept their custom under control by allowing an unpaid sum for goods supplied to stand over. That was a vicious system of trading, but how could it be best dealt with? It had been said that if they removed imprisonment for debt they would destroy credit. To some extent that would be true, but what other remedies were available? One remedy was the seizure of the debtor's goods, and another remedy worthy of consideration was the system which prevailed in Scotland, where there was no imprisonment for debt. It was the remedy of the attachment of wages. The system was tried in England, but it had been abolished. To what extent the arrestment of wages prevailed in Scotland he was not prepared to say until further information was available, and further information was certainly desirable before they attempted to frame legislation dealing with the matter. One point had been touched on very lightly, and that was that there were many kinds of debts, debts in which no voluntary credit had been given by the creditor, as in the cases of alimony and bastardy. It would be very hard in such cases to deprive the creditor of any remedy, and therefore, cases of that kind they were obliged to consider very carefully in framing any legislation. All the considerations pointed to a little further inquiry before an attempt was made to frame any Bill upon the subject, and he suggested that possibly a Select Committee would be the best way of carrying out an inquiry. The Government regarded the object in view sympathetically.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That the present powers of committing to prison for non-payment of a debt ought to be restricted."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

RATING (LONDON).
MR. CROOKSrose to call attention to the incidence of rating in London, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present inequality of the rates raised in the different parishes in London requires the early consideration of Parliament." He

945
said he realised at the outset that in proposing this Resolution he would be an excellent target for a good many Members. He would, however, try to avoid the temptation to refer to the allegations which had been made against himself in regard to what had taken place at Poplar. He might say, however, in regard to the allegation that at Poplar they had fed the poor at other people's expense, that the Poplar Guardians could not feed them at the expense of the poor because they had not the money. But there was a vast difference between the charges made against his Board and those levelled at others outside the boundaries of London. Whatever expense Poplar incurred was incurred for the poor and not for the aggrandisement of the Board. In the Report to the President of the Local Government Board on the Poplar Union there was a paragraph which said—
"The general policy of the guardians also includes a strong view as to the equalisation of rates in the Metropolis. Mr. Crooks and Mr. Lansbury claim, as a matter of justice, that the whole rates of London should pay for the whole of London pauperism, and they frankly accepted Mr. Arthur Balfour's dictum that any further extension of the principle of equalisation of the rates must be accompanied by what he termed 'a curtailment of local autonomy.' In fact the evidence suggests that in later years the guardians deliberately increased their expenditure with a view of making it evident that additional contributions from the rates of the whole Metropolis were an absolute necessity for the Poplar District."
The inquiry by the Local Government Board lasted over twenty days and there was a protracted audit lasting over four months, and notwithstanding that, no single instance was proved that the guardians had broken a law or helped any poor people in the Poplar Union that they had no right to help. The Report wound up with the following remarkable sentence—
"The whole Metropolis now practically pays for the maintenance of the indoor poor of London, and it would appear to be only equitable that the indoor administration of the Metropolitan Unions should be uniform."
He thought that showed a want of knowledge of the facts on the part of the man who made that Report. It was perfectly true that under the Local Government Act of 1888, which created the London County Council, arrangements were made for certain indoor grants to the various unions of London. At Poplar they had about 360 odd
946
persons above the certified number, all of whom had to be paid out of the local rates. He agreed that there should be a reduction where children were kept in the house, but the fact remained that they had that number over their certified number and had to lose in proportion. Poplar was not the only union which suffered in that way, as the following quotation would show—
"The Stepney Union affords a good example of the injustice that is being wrought by the grant not being brought up to date. The average daily number of indoor poor maintained at the cost of this union for five years to March, 1888, as certified by the Local Government Board, was 1,021. The approximate daily number for the five years ending 1906 was 1,671, a daily increase of 650 persons since 1888. Taking 1,671 as representing the present daily numbers, the grant of £6,211, payable to this union in respect of indoor poor, fixed in 1888 at 4d. per day, now amounts to 2·44d. per day. If the grant were now 4d. per day, as in 1888, the total amount to be raised in London would probably be £442,065, out of which amount the Stepney Union would be called upon to contribute, according to its rateable value, £3,368, and would be entitled to receive in respect of its daily number of indoor poor (computed at 1,671) a sum of £10,165, a net annual gain of £6,797, instead of £3,721 gained on the basis arrived at in 1888."
That disposed of the argument that London bore the whole cost. The figures for London had been proved over and over again. The creation of the borough councils had only accentuated the position, and had created even to a greater extent than existed before cities of the rich and cities of the poor. Although they had been given mayors and corporations they still remained poor. Upon this subject he would quote to the House the Return he put in before the inquiry—
"In considering the burden of local rates it is undesirable to take the figures for a single year. My Return, which has been prepared by the statistical officer of the London County Council, showing the comparative position of the metropolitan boroughs and poor law areas in respect of rates for the county and local purposes, based on the average for the four years ended 31st March, 1905, sets out very clearly the inequalities of local burdens. This Return shows that the total rates range from 9s. 8d. in Poplar to 6s. 4d. in the City of London, the average being 7s. 0·5d., and the Guardians' rates range from 2s. 6·4d. in Poplar to 2·8d. in Westminster, the average being 9·1d. The produce of the 1d. rate ranges from £819 in St. George's-in-the-East to £19,928 in the City of London, Poplar being £3,033. The ratio of indoor and outdoor pauperism to population based on the mean number of

947
paupers on 1st January and 1st July ranges as follows: —
"Indoor from 52 per 10,000 in Hampstead to 704 per 10,000 in the Strand Union, average 155, Poplar, 200.
"Outdoor from nine in White chapel to 295 in Bermondsey per 10,000, average 95, Poplar, 233.
"It is pointed out that if the ratio of pauperism were the same in each area and the expenditure were the same in proportion, the Guardians' rate must still necessarily differ inversely as the assessable value per head.
"The Return further shows that if the assessable value of Poplar instead of being £4·8 were the same as the average for the whole county the local rates would have been 2s. 6d. in the £ instead of 4s. 7d. If the assessable value per head was the same as the Strand Union the rate would be 4d., Marylebone, 1s. 8d., and Kensington, 1s. 9d."
The most remarkable thing about all this was that when the nation was in trouble or danger, of course they were all one; there was no distinction, and they talked about "Duke's son and cook's son;" but in time of peace the nation said to them "Keep yourselves and don't worry; if you are poor, God help you, for we cannot." But, after all, totals counted for something, and he asserted that notwithstanding their poverty, it was clean, honest poverty which they had tried to deal with in Poplar. Endeavouring to deal with their own poor when they could not afford it was one of the things for which he had been denounced. He would like to quote some figures from the Westminster Gazette showing the expenditure per head of population in four Metropolitan Boroughs. In Holborn it was £6 4s.; Westminster, £10 18s; Marylebone, £4 12s.; and Poplar, £2 18s. He admitted that a 12s. rate was appalling, but he did not agree with the argument that they had driven any trade away from the Poplar district. According to some of the statements which had been made Poplar must be a howling wilderness. Of course it might be convenient for London to congregate its poor workers in certain parts, but it was inevitable that in those districts breakdown in health and accidents to life and limb should be more frequent. People did not like to live in Poplar, because it had an evil reputation; it was smoky and dirty, and there were many poor people who came and knocked at their doors. It
948
might be convenient, but it was not right that London should shirk its responsibilities in this matter. One of the objections raised was that they could not claim equalisation of rates until they had equalisation in the cost of administration. In the Poplar Union the cost of administration for officers was 2s. 10d. per pound of Poor Law expenditure as against 3s. 8d. elsewhere. A penny rate in Poplar realised £3,033, whilst in Kensington it produced nearly £9,000. If Poplar had the assessment of Marylebone, the rate would be 5s. 4d. in the pound, and if Marylebone had to raise the money it required on the Poplar assessment its rates would be 15s. in the pound. It was not right to allow the poor to keep the poor who really belonged to the whole of London. He begged to move.
*MR. DICKINSON: seconded the Resolution, although he regretted that it had not been moved in its original form. It was advisable that the House should devote a little attention to the question of the rates of London. The London rating problem had often been brought up, but it had never been dealt with in a scientific manner, and he hoped that before long the Government would deal with it from a comprehensive point of view. Parliament had always been imbued with the idea that London, like other towns, should be so administered that the poor and the rich should contribute equally, and that was the reason why the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was established. It was an attempt made in 1869 to bring the total rateable value of London to the assistance of the poorer parts of the Metropolis. From that fund about £1,600,000 a year was distributed amongst the various boards of guardians. The fund was administered by the Local Government Board which was supposed to exercise control over it. A further step in this direction was taken in the Local Government Act of 1888 under which special provision was made for extending the common charge for Poor Law purposes by empowering the London County Council to collect a sum of money as part of the county rate and distribute it to the various

949
boards of guardians. In 1894 the Equalisation of Rates Bill was passed at the instance of the London County Council, and it proceeded on a system which had nothing to commend it but its simplicity. A rate of sixpence in the pound was to be raised over the whole of London, and the proceeds, amounting to about £1,000,000, were to be distributed to the various boroughs and parishes in proportion to the population. The most populous parts were generally the poorest, and by distributing the money in that way they did to a certain extent relieve the poor parts at the expense of the richer; but it had no logical basis, and its effect was in many ways unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding all these attempts by Parliament to equalise the rates of London they were no more equal to-day than before the attempts were made, and the inequality instead of diminishing had gradually become greater. Six years ago the lowest rate in London was 5s. 9d. in the pound whilst the highest was 9s. 2d., or a difference of 3s. 5d. Last year the lowest rate was 6s. and the highest 11s. 10d., or a difference of 5s. 10d. Although they had transferred a great deal of the expenditure upon Poor Law and local government administration in London from the local to the central rates, at the same time they had not done away with the great disparity between the rates in different parts of London. The total expenditure raised by the rates of London was £15,000,000. Of this sum £8,000,000 was spent by bodies which had jurisdiction over the whole of London, the remaining £7,000,000 being spent by authorities having jurisdiction over only certain localities. But, of this £7,000,000 only £4,000,000 was raised locally, the other £3,000,000 being provided for out of rates collected over the whole of London. Thus nearly half of the money expended locally was raised centrally. This state of affairs was still more remarkable when examined in detail. The proportions, of course, varied in every district, and varied considerably when looked at from the point of view of whether they were devoted to Poor Law or to local government administration. Of the aggregate expenditure of the boards of guardians in London two-thirds was
950
raised by a central rate, and of the expenditure of the borough councils one quarter was raised by a central rate. But in individual localities the proportions were even more striking. In the Whitechapel Union, of the amount of money spent by the guardians only one-fourth was raised by them, or in other words three-fourths of the money they expended was supplied by the metropolitan ratepayers. In the borough of Deptford one half of the money expended for the purposes of local administration was provided for the borough council by the central fund. Such a system was open to grave objections. In the first place it was a direct incentive to extravagance. Perhaps he would be allowed to support that argument by one or two more figures. If hon. Members compared the six years which he had already given as an illustration, 1901–2 to 1906–7, they would find that in many instances the expenditure of the local authorities had been increasing very rapidly. At the same time by reason of the fact that they could draw largely on central funds the obligation to raise the money from their own ratepayers was being reduced. In Bermondsey the increase of local expenditure on Poor Law was such that it would have necessitated an increase in the local rate of 5d. in the pound, but central assistance came to their aid to so great an extent that the local poor rate was hardly increased at all. The same thing could be said of Deptford, where the increase of expenditure would have meant more on the rates, but as a matter of fact the rate was reduced. He could give other instances, but they would only show the same result, namely, that at the present moment the tendency of the equalisation fund was to enable the local authorities to increase their expenditure without feeling that they had got to go to the ratepayers for an equivalent increase in the rates; and therefore he submitted that to that extent the system now in vogue was one which brought about a direct incentive to local extravagance. The chief fund which was placed at the disposal of the local authorities was the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and that fund, although it was under the control of the Local Government Board, had shown a tendency to increase to an

951
undue extent. In 1886 the amount received by the fund was £929,000 in 1905 it was £1,619,000, showing an increase of £690,000, or 74 per cent. in nineteen years. The number of paupers in London in that period had increased by only 36 per cent. It might be useful to glance at one or two items of expenditure which this central fund had had to meet. The money devoted out of that fund to the purpose of indoor paupers had increased by £92,000. The maintenance of pauper children had increased £63,000. The amount granted for insane paupers showed an increase of £177,000. The greatest increase of all was for salaries paid to officers. In that case the increase was £279,709, or 112 per cent. Therefore the powers of supervision exercised by the Local Government Board required further consideration. He had no doubt that the President of the Board was fully alive to the defects of the fund, and that he would give attention to the subject. He did not think the Board really supervised the expenditure of the fund. He believed every step was taken to see that the payments made were properly vouched and audited, but the discretion as to the expenditure was practically left to the boards of guardians. The supervision by the Local Government Board was by no means satisfactory, and any further enlargement of that fund or improvement of the system of equalisation would require a very much better system to check the expenditure of the local authorities. He believed the only solution for London rating was that there should be one rate over the whole of London, but that would necessitate a general system of check over the expenditure. It was not beyond the power of Parliament to devise some satisfactory method of controlling local expenditure; but it would involve a revision of the relationship between the central government of London and the local government of London, and therefore any question of the further equalisation of rates must be taken up by the House of Commons as part of a general system of London government.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present inequality of the rates raised in
952
the different parishes in London requires the early consideration of Parliament."—(Mr. Crooks.)
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Resolution had reference to Poplar alone, whereas the Resolution, if it had any meaning at all, extended to the whole of London. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras had admitted that if they once established a single rate for the whole of London they must establish at the same time a proper and serious check over the expenditure of the whole of London, and that, of course, was the crux of the whole question. When once that was admitted there was really very little difference between the two sides of the House. It seemed to him that it would be almost impossible to establish that proper control. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Common Poor Fund with the object of showing that it had worked well, and that, therefore, there was no reason why something of a similar nature should not be established. He gathered that the hon. Gentleman wished the control of the Local Government Board over that fund increased, and he agreed that that was a step which ought to be taken. In 1894 when the Equalisation of Rates Bill was before the House, Sir George Bartley and himself were the only Members on that side who opposed it, although their constituencies would have benefited most under the Bill. Their action caused considerable astonishment in their constituencies. At present he represented a constituency which would lose most by such a Bill, but he would still maintain the attitude which he took up in 1894. Inequality of rating must exist unless London were made into one area and the control given to one central body. He thought that was impossible, and that therefore any attempt to make the rating equal would be of no use. When he represented Peckham he discussed the subject with his constituents, and he told them that if they were to get money from other parts of London and have no control over expenditure they would not gain. The only result would be that instead of the expenditure being reduced it would

953
be increased, because the local authority would say that as they had 2s. 6d. coming to them as a subvention they would spend 3s. In Camber well from 1894 to 1904 the rates had increased in that manner, and his belief was that if they attempted to arrange for a single rate for the whole metropolitan area it would lead to fatal extravagance on the part of the municipal bodies, not only in London but in all parts of the country. They had been told that the rate in Poplar was 12s. and that in St. George's, Hanover Square, it was only 5s. But the rate levied in St. George's, Hanover Square, was three or four times more than the rate raised in Poplar. It must not be thought that merely because someone was living in a borough where the rent was very low he was paying a much larger rate than another man living in another borough where the rents were very high. The question was of very great importance; it went to the root of the municipal government in London, and he did not think it could be discussed on a Wednesday evening in an abstract manner, especially as there was no meaning in the Resolution as it stood. All that it said was that Parliament should recognise the fact that the present inequality of the rates raised in the different parishes in London required the early consideration of Parliament with a view to the establishment of one rate for the whole of the administrative county. He was certain that if Parliament was really going to do anything at all in the matter, the only business-like way of doing it was to establish one single central authority. He really rose to point out that the inequalities which, on the face of it, seemed to exist in London, did not exist, taking the rating all round as it now stood. He did not see why a Bill should not be introduced to alter the whole system of rating in London, but that should not be done by a Resolution proposed by a private Member. Such abstract Resolutions were useless and encouraged people to think that they were going to gain something for themselves.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. MACNAMARA, Camberwell, N.)said that the House would have already gathered that the problem of London rating was a very complicated one. He would doubt whether there was anything like it in the rating systems of the civilised world; and to a provincial Member it must be amazing in the last degree. In the first place there were five central authorities which levied rates over the whole area: (1) the London County Council, which levied (a) a general rate; (b) an education rate; (c) an equalisation rate under the Act of 1894; (2) the Metropolitan Police Receiver; (3) the Metropolitan Asylums Board; (4) the Local Government Board, on account of the Metropolitan Poor Fund; and (5) the Central Unemployed Body under the Unemployed Act of 1905. In addition to that, there were two sets of local authorities which levied rates locally—the boards of guardians and the borough councils. Dealing first of all with the rates levied over the whole area by the five central bodies referred to, and taking the figures for 1906–7, these central bodies called on the ratepayers to pay a total of 5s. 1·478d. in the pound. That was what was raised for general purposes, and was made up by the three rates levied by the London County Council, viz., 1s. 5d. for county rate, 1s. 7d. for education, and 6d. for equalisation; a police rate of 5d.; a rate for the Metropolitan Asylums Board of 5·375d.; a rate for the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund of 8·864d. levied by the Local Government Board; and a rate of ·239d., or less than a farthing, levied by the Central Committee on the Unemployed under the Act of 1905. In the second place there were two sets of local authorities who levied rates locally—the guardians and the borough councils. The local rates levied by these two bodies varied in a remarkable degree. That, of course, must be so when the rateable value of the City of London per head of its night population was £187 3s., and the rateable value per head in St. George's-in-the-East was £4 3s. Therefore, obviously when they came to consider the rates made locally, they were face to face with a very remarkable differentiation. Let them take, first of all, the rate laid by the guardians. They enjoyed first of all, their shares—paid on

955
expenditure and population—out of the Common Poor Fund which was raised by a general equalised rate levied all over London of 8·864d. in the pound in mitigation of local burdens. That was dispensed on an equalisation scale. For instance, Hampstead got value equal to a rate of 2·64d. in the pound and St James', Westminster, 3·5d., while on the other hand Bow got 25·16d.; Bromley, 25·4d.; Poplar 24·67d.; Limehouse, 27·45d.; Bethnal Green, 28·49d.; and St. George's-in-the-East, 37·28d. Before he came to the actual Poor Law rate levied locally he would point out that there was another smallish Equalisation Fund payable to the guardians by the London County Council in mitigation of the burden which ultimately fell on the locality. The County Council paid over to them 4d. per head for indoor poor; half the cost of medical officers' salaries and of drugs and medical appliances; made grants in aid of Poor Law teachers' salaries; paid towards the registration of births and deaths; and allowed 4s. per head per week for pauper lunatics. Under that arrangement the richer parts of the metropolis benefited to the extent of 2d. or 3d. in the pound, while in the poorer parts the amount was 6d. or 9d. In Bethnal Green indeed the rebatement came to 10½d. and in St. George's-in-the-East it was 15·45d. Notwithstanding these two rebatements, the incidence of local rating in respect of Poor Law work varied enormously. Of course it would vary much more but for the equalisations; but notwithstanding them and excluding them from the charge that fell upon the localities for Poor Law purposes, Hampstead having received those benefactions got off with 2·36d., Kensington with 3·74d., St. George's, Hanover Square, with 2·39d., and St. James', Westminster, with 1·83d. These were at the one pole, and, on the other hand, were Bermondsey which raised locally 2s. 2·15d.; Bow, 3s. 2·52d.; Bromley, 3s. 2·88d.; and Poplar, 3s. 1·76d.
Then they came to the municipal local rate laid by the borough councils. That was, in the first place, mitigated by equalisation under the Act of 1894. The County Council collected sixpence over the whole metropolitan area; that was put into a common purse, and when the total rate was made up sums were taken out
956
in proportion to the burden on the locality for local rating purposes. All localities paid in sixpence, and richer districts in Westminster and the West End got out shares ranging from a farthing to three pence in the pound on rateable value, whereas the poorer parts got out, not a farthing or three pence, but—Bethnal Green a subvention or rebate equal to 14·43d.; Camberwell, 11·88d.; Bow, 12·9d.; Bromley, 13·99d.; Mile End New Town. 14·32; and Mile End Old Town, 13·7d. That included in each case the contribution to the Equalisation Fund. Then there was another very small rebate made by the County Council to borough councils, as they paid half the salaries of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, and there was a payment to the City Corporation in respect of City lunatics. He had endeavoured to trace the origin of that curious benefaction and had got back to 43rd Elizabeth. But the County Council had to make that rebate. Notwithstanding these rebates, municipal rates varied very considerably—from 6d. to 1s. 6d. in the richer parts, and, running to the other end of the gamut in the poorer, the operatives' parts of London, Woolwich had 2s. 4·18d. laid on for borough council purposes in addition to the subventions; Bow, 2s. 5d.; Bromley, 2s. 7·89d.; and Poplar, 2s. 8·6d. Such was the succinct history of London rates, and going over the whole field and taking the whole of the rates laid on London, five general and two local, with rebates and subventions, the mean rate, not the average rate as it was sometimes erroneously called, but the mean rate was 7s. 5·4d. in the £. But the total of the rates, central and local, laid on the various localities with the mitigation caused by rebates and subventions came out in Kensington and Paddington at 6s. 8d. in the pound. That was at the one end. At the other end they had Shoreditch, 8s. 1d.; Bethnal Green, 8s. 2d.; Battersea, 8s. 4d.; Camberwell, 8s. 11d.; Stepney, 8s. 11·95d.; Bermondsey, 9s. 3·99d.; and Poplar, 11s. 8·02d. He thought it must be obvious to anybody that equalisation to a greater extent than they had at present was urgently necessary. One thing they might do would be completely to equalise the poor rate, which

957
would be a considerable advantage to the poorer parts. Then they would have to ask themselves whether they would rely on Local Government Board control to deal equitably between those who paid in and those who took out. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras did not think so, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London thought a central authority rather than a Government Board was required to deal fairly between those who paid in and those who took out. They might, he said, proceed by equalising the poor rate. If they did not do that they might proceed by an extension of the principle of the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894. That took 6d. in the pound, which was put into a common purse, and paid out in reduction of the rates in each locality. It might be suggested that the 6d. should be made 1s. That had been closely considered; but it would have some curious and unexpected results. Or they might determine to have one general inclusive rate, for all purposes, for all London. That would be his 7s. 5·4d. at the present time. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that if they did that they would have very seriously to consider the whole question of London local government. He did not know of any other city in the United Kingdom, or indeed in the civilised world, where if a person lived at one end of the city he paid one rate and if he lived at the other end he paid another. In this case they could apply the Apostolic injunction and help to bear one another's burdens. But if that was done, and it certainly was desirable to have one common rate, they would have to go very carefully into the whole question of the government of London. They could not possibly have, and no serious Parliament could justify, a procedure under which all parts of the city paid the same and independent local authorities came and took out what they liked. A number of inter-dependent questions would arise at once. When they came to consider one common rate they would have to consider the relations between the various local governing bodies, the question of various assessments, and, to mention one subject which had not been referred to in the debate, the question of the metropolitan area, They had large areas
958
outside which they wanted to take very carefully into consideration. He accepted the Motion ex animo and as leading up to some action on the part of the Government in the direction of further equalisation, even if it were not the general and universal equalisation referred to that night. The equalisation of rates was put into the King's Speech in 1906, so that the Government were pledged to the principle, though it had become much more difficult of application on closer consideration than might have been at first imagined. They desired to deal with the question wisely, and he hoped that what he had said tended in that direction. Possibly the best course might be, especially if the subject was raised in its larger form, as he hoped it might be, through the medium of a complete inquiry into the incidence of the rate in connection with the inter-dependent questions of London local government. Or it might be that the Government would be able to deal with it without such an inquiry. But, however that might be, they did intend to deal with the question as promptly and as thoroughly as the circumstances of the case, and they were very serious, seemed to the Government to justify.
*MR. STRAUSsaid that from his knowledge, which was extensive, there was no town in the world where the rating system was more anomalous than it was in London. If Manchester were under the same peculiar and ridiculous system as existed in the Metropolis, it would mean that there would be districts in Manchester which would pay at least 15s., and other districts which would pay 5s. or less, in the pound. There was hardly a Member in the House but would say that that would be palpably unjust. What was right for Manchester and other towns of the United Kingdom must be right and just for the Metropolis. The Metropolis had grown up out of numerous villages which had retained their antiquated and ridiculous rating authorities. Even if each London borough had one rate for the whole borough, it would not be as absurd as the present system. When the Unionist Government established the borough councils, they

959
included the whole of this ridiculous system. In the great city of Westminster there were eleven different rates, and they varied from 6s. to 7s. 8d. in the pound. In Stepney there were twelve different rates varying from 8s. to 9s. 7d. and so on throughout London. What was wanted was a system which was absolutely fair; the present system was absolutely unfair. A great number of the people in Mile End and Poplar worked during the bulk of the hours of the day in Westminster or Marylebone. They had to live in Mile End or some other place where they could get cheaper house accommodation, and it struck him as being hard that they should be mulcted in heavy rates, whereas the richer areas, more able to pay, got off almost scotfree. Then there was the question of indebtedness. In Westminster the indebtedness was £72 10s. per head of the population. In Bethnal Green it was £11 6s., in Stepney, £13 2s., in Mile End, about £12. Taking the indebtedness of London as a whole, they would say that the mean rate between £72 10s. in Westminster, and £11 6s. in Bethnal Green was the indebtedness of London. But that would be a wrong view of the case. The fact was that the districts with the more valuable property, and where they paid a smaller rate in the pound, had adopted a financial basis which was less sound than the basis adopted in the poorer districts. In the latter they paid for what they wanted out of the rates, whereas the richer districts followed the bad financial system of borrowing very heavily, because their rateable value was high. Then as to local expenditure; in Westminster it was £10 16s. per head of the population; in Stepney, £2 4s.; in Bethnal Green only £1 14s. It was absolutely absurd that one part of London should not take its fair share of responsibility for another part of London. The day would come, and perhaps was not so far distant as some hon. Members imagined, when those poorer districts would find it more difficult to get a sufficient rate to carry on their work properly, and they might experience what had been seen on the Continent, namely, neglect of the public health.
960
The maintenance of the public health in the poorer areas was necessary in the interests of the richer areas, because infectious diseases spread, and made no distinction between rich and poor. He hoped and believed that something would be done by the Government after the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, which he welcomed, and they had not forgotten the promise in the King's speech of last year. There was no question of greater moment to the people of London than that of the equalisation of the rates. Perhaps the majority of Members did not like the complexion of the County Council as now constituted, but his argument was the same now as it was years ago, that the central authority should be the rating authority of London. There was no reason why they should not know local needs and requirements. It was all very well to talk of the difficulties in the way, but they already possessed the machinery for dealing with the evil, and it could be and should be used. The day would come when the difficulty of raising an adequate rate in the poorer districts would be so great that the interests of the public health would have to be neglected. He hoped the Government would recognise the necessity of dealing adequately and properly with this important question which had been dealt with in every other city in the world under one rate. Until that had been done the Government would not have done their duty to the greatest city in the world. He thanked the House for the kind attention they had given him, and he desired to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon the very able and adequate way in which he had dealt with the question. As a London Member he hoped the Government would remember that there was no other London question of such vital importance as the one before the House.
MR. W. PEARCEsaid that in his constituency the rates were 9s. 3d. in the pound, and be ventured to think that it would not be a matter of great difficulty to equalise the poor rate. If that one thing were done he was sure it would go a long way towards remedying the inequalities which existed at the present time.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid those localities which were suffering most from the inequalities referred to would be gratified by the statement which had been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. Those associated with the work of local authorities would be pleased to hear of the promise made on behalf of the Government, that any reform to be effective must be in the direction of simplification, equalisation, and unification. He was glad of the recognition that London was one, or almost one, and that matters of local taxation should be dealt with from that point of view; and, further, that the outside districts were also to be considered. The whole argument of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was not only that the House should accept the limited Motion on the Paper, but that it was also necessary to go further in the direction of unification of the rates for the whole of London. He could not dismiss from his mind the necessity for an entire rearrangement of London local government which would naturally arise from that conclusion. He was glad that in the hands of the present Government there was not much likelihood of London being cut up into a number of artificial local areas; that they recognised that London was in fact one, and that in matters of local government it should be dealt with on that assumption. The melancholy case of West Ham was fresh in the minds of hon. Members. West Ham was never satisfied until it got a corporation of its own, and it had never been satisfied since. Its rates, which were 5s. in the pound before incorporation, had now gone up to 10s. in the pound. He was very glad to hear that the Government recognised that it would be necessary also to deal with the outside districts. He would like to remind the representatives of the Local Government Board that the Report of the Royal Commission upon Local Taxation stated that many duties now locally administered, such as those connected with education and pauperism, were onerous burdens which ought to be national rather than local charges.
MR. STUARTsaid that previous speakers had dealt with the question solely from the point of view
962
of the tenants and occupiers. He wished to point out that it was a much more complicated question, because it was a landlord's question as well. The landlords in the poor districts suffered much more than the landlords in the rich districts. He thought the question might be looked at as one free altogether from Party politics. They all knew that the question of rates and their incidence was one of the most complicated subjects they could tackle. There seemed to be an impression that the burden of the rates fell upon the occupier. He had the honour of sitting upon the Royal Commission upon Local Taxation, and he had no hesitation in saying that at the end of the long inquiry held by that Commission there was not a single member of that body who was not convinced that the incidence of the rates in the long run fell very largely upon the landlord. Those who were expecting such great things from the proposed changes should remember that in what was suggested it would not be the tenant alone who would be benefited by the change, but the landlord would also be included. He had risen mainly to give this word of caution to the Government, and to those who were inclined to expect so much from these changes.
*DR. COOPERsaid that for the first time they had had a declaration from the Government Bench that London was one and indivisible, that with equalisation of rates there should also be uniformity of administration, and that the basis of valuation should be similar and that the poor were not a special product of any one district, but belonged to London. He sincerely hoped that if an inquiry took place it would not be made by a Royal Commission, but by a Committee of the House, which could deal quickly with the whole question. In that way they would not have the long and tedious delay which inquiry by a Royal Commission would involve.
MR. PICKERSGILL: expressed the hope that if the Government elected to proceed by having an inquiry before proposing legislation, they would appoint a Committee without delay, because after the pledges which were given at the last

963
general election the people of London would be grievously disappointed if the question was not dealt with immediately.
*MR. R. PEARCEsaid the Motion proposed that there should be one rate. He would like to know what was to be rated. At the present time the rates for education, the registration of voters, main roads, and other matters, were levied according to the rateable value of the houses which people occupied or used as places of business. That was a most unequal made of rating for any purpose. He hoped the Government, when they came to consider the matter, would introduce a method of rating by which the citizens would pay according to their means and not according to rental. Those who had the largest incomes should contribute the largest share of the cost.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the present inequality of the rates raised in the different parishes in London requires the early consideration of Parliament.—(Mr. Crooks.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate, otherwise order. But this Order shall not apply to—(a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders; (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the whole House in respect to other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the Question thereon,"—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman)—resumed.
Motion made and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: moved the adjournment of the debate. He said that last Thursday the Prime Minister was asked a question about the business of the House for this week. He had handed to the Government Whips a copy of The Times giving the answer and he had not seen it since. The Prime Minister stated that to-morrow (Thursday) it was proposed to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates and to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary to get the Third Reading by Thursday. He contended there was no reason why it should be taken that night, especially having regard to the fact that the Committee stage of an important Bill was behind it. It might be urged that the Bill was in a more advanced stage now than could have been anticipated last Thursday. But why was that so? A bargain was made across the floor of the House, and all he could say was that if statements were to be made by the Leader of the House on one day, and on the same day an arrangement come to between the Secretary for War and himself as representing the front Opposition Bench, and those bargains and arrangements were to be upset, he would be very chary of coming to such arrangements in future. On this occasion he thought that the Government had a particularly bad case. On Monday last, it would not be denied that on the Second Reading of this Bill they did not have a particularly happy time; and when on the Third Reading they might expect to be hammered again, they took the Bill at a period of the night when no reporters

965
would be present. Another point was that this year the Army (Annual) Bill was in many important respects an almost entirely new Bill, and it ought to be given full and fair discussion by all those who were interested in the well-being of the private soldier. His hon. friends behind him wanted that full discussion, but apparently the Government desired to have the Third Reading of another important Bill in front of it in order to burke discussion, or to bring it on in the small hours of the morning when the debates were too late to be reported. He made his motion because he was speaking of a bargain made across the floor of the House, and because he did not believe in such Bills being hurried through.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." (Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,)said that as regarded the Army (Annual) Bill, ever since he had been in the House it had been taken at that hour of the night, and he was there prepared to give the fullest information in his power to hon. and gallant Members opposite—quite as full information as had been given on former occasions. He did not desire in the least to curtail the consideration of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George Whiteley, Yorkshire, W.R.,)said that as this matter affected the business of the House, he wished to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellington. He thought that the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat ungenerous, if not ungracious. On Thursday night last the Prime Minister was interrogated as to the course of business, when he said that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken on Tuesday, and the Third Reading on Wednesday. The House would remember that the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place and pressed the Prime Minister that it was not fair to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Tuesday,
966
when at a quarter past eight the discussion would be interrupted for private Members' business and when so many of his supporters wanted to speak on the Bill. Having got the Report of Ways and Means through on Thursday night, in order to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Party the Government gave up the long Government day on Monday for the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill and contented themselves with the short day on Tuesday for their other business. In fact, the Government had altered their arrangements and gone out of their way to oblige hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now they were being blamed for it. Moreover, as must always be the case, announcements as to the course of public business made on a Thursday were bound in some respects to be provisional; but they endeavoured as far as they could to adhere to their plan.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that that was the first time they had been told that announcements made as to the course of public business on Thursdays were bound to be provisional. They were not told so on Thursday last, when the hon. Gentleman made his forecast of the course of business for the next few days. He thought that it would have been within the ordinary scope of Parliamentary etiquette if the hon. Gentleman had informed the Opposition that this alteration in the business was to be made, and that the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill was to be taken that evening. They had a right to notice that this important Bill was to be taken instead of the Army (Annual) Bill. They would not have objected to the Bill being taken, if they had had fair notice. They did not object to the Secretary for War's measure being taken that night, because the right hon. Gentleman had given notice about it. But it was unfair to interpose the Consolidated Fund Bill between the Army (Annual) Bill and the House. He presumed that the Motion would be defeated and that they would have to discuss the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, but he ventured to appeal to the Patronage Secretary even at the last moment to give way on the matter.
SIR F. BANBURY: hoped the Patronage Secretary would reconsider his decision to force on the Consolidated Fund Bill that evening. He did not see how the hon. Gentleman was going to lose if he gave way. If he did so they would proceed with the Army (Annual) Bill as to which there was no intention to prolong the discussion indefinitely. One or two hours would be sufficient for the Army (Annual) Bill, and then the hon. Gentleman would have the next day to discuss the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. That would not interfere with Supply, which he would get just the same. He asked the hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment, in his own interest and the interests of the House, whether he would not make a gracious concession and allow them now to proceed with the consideration of the Army (Annual) Bill.
LORD R. CECIL: pointed out that the Prime Minister said on Thursday last that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be taken on Tuesday, the Committee on Wednesday, and the Third Reading on Thursday. No alteration was made in that scheme of business except that by arrangement the Second Reading was taken on Monday instead of on Tuesday. Thereupon the Patronage Secretary said that it necessarily followed that in consequence of that alteration the Third Reading should be taken that night.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: pointed out that the Committee stage was under the arrangement to be taken that evening.
LORD R. CECILsaid there could be no discussion on the Committee stage except of a technical character, but the Third Reading was a different matter and any question could be raised which in the view of hon. Members was of public importance. The Members of the Opposition had relied on a pledge given by the Prime Minister, and he felt that the House was in some little difficulty because the Prime Minister was not present. He felt convinced that if the Prime Minister had been present, he would have got up at once, and, throwing
968
over the Patronage Secretary, said that any statement which he had made in the House and which had been relied upon by other Members must be observed literally, if the proceedings of the House were to be carried on with comfort and without friction. He thought that considering the statements which had been made and that the Prime Minister was not present to secure the strict fulfilment of the pledge he had given, the Government would be well advised to yield the point, which could make no difference to them, but which would make a considerable difference in the feelings of a large body of Members as to the way in which they had been treated.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,)said that nothing was more disagreeable or disconcerting than any dispute as to whether there had been a breach of faith with regard to the arrangement of business. He would point out to the noble lord that the Leader of the Opposition was absent, as well as the Prime Minister, and as during the course of the day it had been known exactly what the arrangements were, he should certainly have expected the Leader of the Opposition to have been present to raise the question if there had been any general impression that there had been breach of faith. He did not remember any case in which the successive stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill had not been taken on successive days. It was not possible to alter the present arrangements without causing considerable inconvenience to the House of Lords, whose business had been arranged on the assumption that the Third Reading of the Bill would be taken that night.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: hoped that the Government would not press this matter. If they persisted in taking two important measures like the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Army (Annual) Bill after eleven o'clock, it would be a characteristic illustration of the extraordinary way in which those now responsible for the business of the country conducted it. The House had

969
fixed eleven o'clock as a reasonable time at which to finish business, and although they knew there were occasions on which it was absolutely necessary to proceed after that hour, and they knew the Army (Annual) Bill was to come on after that time, there was no reason why the discussion upon it should not commence at eleven o'clock. But it was a most important measure, which they ought not to be called upon to discuss in the middle of the night, and there was no reason for taking a second Bill after the hour at which the business of the House usually finished. He had private information that many supporters of the Government desired to raise important questions on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and they had been deliberately robbed of their opportunity. It had been suggested that if the Government yielded on this point facilities would be given to allow them to get the Army (Annual) Bill in an unreasonably short time. All he could say was that he would be no party to any thing of the sort.
*MR. CAVEsaid he had fully intended to call attention to what he thought was a real grievance on the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill, which he understood was to be taken to-morrow. He had desired to raise the question of the block of business in the Courts, but owing to the change in the arrangements he was not prepared to state his case fully that night. He thought the alteration was a cause of real disadvantage to private Members, and he therefore appealed to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to have regard to what the Prime Minister
was certainly understood to say last week, and to allow the debate to be adjourned.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the House had been told that arrangements were made last week with another place in order to allow the Government to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill to-night, but if such an arrangement had been made so long ago, it was a great pity the House was not informed earlier. There were many hon. Members who desired to raise important questions on the Third Reading of the Bill, and many hon. Members were determined to take the opportunity, it being one of the few opportunities private Members had. It was understood that the opportunity would arise to-morrow. The Prime Minister undoubtedly said so, and when the arrangement was made to transpose the business of Monday and Tuesday, all the House was told was that there had been an interchange of business. Not a word was said of any alteration of the business for Wednesday and Thursday. Under those circumstances, he urged that not only would great inconvenience be caused to private Members by the loss of the opportunity to raise important questions, but owing to the determination to raise those points, at no matter what hour, the course if persisted in would postpone to an unreasonable period of the night the discussion on the Army Annual Bill. He therefore urged the Government to allow the Bill to stand over until to-morrow.
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes, 74; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 46.)

AYES

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Cross, Alexander

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carlile, E. Hildred

Faber, George Denison (York)

Ashley, W. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Cave, George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Forster, Henry William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East).

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Haddock, George R.

Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

Coates, E Feetham (Lewsisham

Hamilton, Marquess of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Courthope, G. Loyd

Helmsley, Viscount

Boyle, Sir Edward

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Bull, Sir William James

Craik, Sir Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Thornton, Percy M.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Magnus, Sir Philip

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Sassoon Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sheffield Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Smith Abel H(Hertford, East)

Younger, George

Nield, Herbert

Smith F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Percy, Earl

Stanley Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Starkey, John R.

Viscount Valentia and Lord Edmund Talbot

Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cox, Harold

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crean, Eugene

Jowett, F. W.

Agnew, George William

Cremer, William Randal

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crooks, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Alden, Percy

Crosfield, A. H.

Kilbride, Denis

Allen, A Acland(Christchurch)

Dalziel, James Henry

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laidlaw, Robert

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Asquith, Rt. Hon HerbertHenry

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Baker, Joseph A(Finsbury, E.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Barker, John

Dunne, Major E Martin(Walsall

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Barnard, E. B.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Elibank, Master of

Levy, Maurice

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Essex, R. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lough, Thomas

Beauchamp, E.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lundon, W.

Beck, A. Cecil

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

Bennett, E. N.

Findlay, Alexander

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maclean, Donald

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

Fullerton, Hugh

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Billson, Alfred

Gill, A. H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Boland, John

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Crae, George

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Brigg, John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kean, John

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Brodie, H. C.

Gulland, John W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Brooke, Stopford

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Mallet, Charles E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hall, Frederick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Byles, William Pollard

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Menzies, Walter

Causton, Rt. Hn RichardKnight

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Chance, Frederick William

Hayden, John Patrick

Montagu, E. S.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mooney, J. J.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clarke, C. Goddard

Henry, Charles S.

Murphy, John

Cleland, J. W.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Murray, James

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hogan, Michael

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nuttall, Harry

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Cooper, G. J.

Hudson, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Dowd, John

Cory, Clifford John

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Grady J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jenkins, J.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cowan, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Runciman, Walter

Wadsworth, J.

O'Shee, James John

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Walsh, Stephen

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

Walters, John Tudor

Partington, Oswald

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Paul, Herbert

Seely, Major J. B.

Wardle, George J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Shackleton, David James

Waring, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

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

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pollard, Dr.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Weir, James Galloway

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Snowden, P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Radford, G. H.

Steadman, W. C.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wiles, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilkie, Alexander

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Rees, J. D.

Summerbell, T.

Williamson, A.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Richardson, A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, Theodore C(Radcliffe)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Winfrey, R.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Robinson, S.

Tomkinson, James

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Toulmin, George

Rose, Charles Day

Verney, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Rowlands, J.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Original Question again proposed.
*MR. CAVE: called attention to the state of business in the Court of Appeal. He made no reflection whatever upon the conduct or arrangement of business in that Court, but it was the fact that owing to circumstances entirely outside the control of the Court there was a serious block of business. He did not know whether the House was aware that throughout the sittings the Court of Appeal had been engaged upon appeals from the King's Bench and the Probate Divisions, and the result was that there had not been half a dozen appeals from the Chancery side disposed of during the present sittings. No doubt the Court of Appeal had a right to deal first with King's Bench appeals, which were in arrear; but the practical effect was a denial of justice to suitors in the Chancery Division during the present sittings. The list of appeals set down before the commencement of the sittings had not been appreciably reduced, and many new appeals had accumulated. They who were familiar with the Courts knew that the work of the Appeal Court, on the common law side, had immensely increased during the last few years. The appeals under the Workmen's
974
Compensation Acts occupied a great deal of time.
*MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member state on which Vote in the Bill he is making his remarks.
*MR. CAVEsaid he understood that part of the Vote which the House was asked to pass in the Bill was connected with the Civil Service Expenditure, and might be applied to paying the salaries so the Judges.
*MR. SPEAKER: Not to the salaries of the Judges.
*MR. CAVEsaid he had always been under the impression that any genuine grievance connected with the administration of justice could be properly raised upon this Bill. He understood that some part of this Vote was devoted to the payment of the expenses of the Court of Appeal.
*MR. SPEAKER: I asked the hon. and learned Member what particular Vote made his remarks relevant, and so far he has not made any reply to my question.
LORD R. CECILasked if it would be relevant to discuss the administration of the Courts of Justice generally on the salary of the Attorney-General on the ground that he ought to have advised the Crown to create more Judges?
*MR. SPEAKER: That question cannot be discussed, because it would be a matter for legislation.
LORD BALCARRESasked the President of the Board of Education to state the general policy of his Department in regard to repairs to voluntary schools. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow to voluntary schools in England the indulgence granted to provided schools in Wales? He also asked what the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was for the distribution of the grant of £100,000 provided in the Estimates for elementary schools. That sum had been allotted for the provision of new schools, and he would like to have some further information from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that proposal. All they had been told up to the present was that it was a contribution towards solving the difficulty in the single school areas. How could it be contended that such a sum would solve the difficulty by the provision of new schools? It was quite evident that not more than 10,000 children at the outside could be accommodated by that sum. He wanted to know what was the right hon. Gentleman's scheme for the distribution of the money. How did he propose to allocate it to the different counties? He could not understand how the grant was at all compatible with Clause 96 of the Act of 1870.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna, Monmouthshire, N.)said the two classes of schools were not on the same footing. It was a statutory duty on both the local education authority and managers to provide buildings efficiently equipped for the purposes of schools, but the penalty was not the same in both cases. If the managers of a non-provided school failed to perform their part of the contract, it was the duty of the local education
976
authority no longer to maintain the school, and upon that point the Board of Education had no alternative but to carry out the law. No part of the £100,000 referred to would be spent if the legal advisers of the Crown advised that it would be improper to spend it in view of Section 96 of the Act of 1870. There was obviously a difficulty with regard to that section. It was a question not for him so much as for the legal advisers of the Crown. [An Opposition Member: Where are they?]
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Where is Balfour?
MR. MCKENNAsaid that if the legal advisers of the Crown were of opinion that the section precluded the expenditure of any part of the £100,000 without a special Act, no money under the Vote would be spent until he had had an opportunity of bringing in a special Act. It was a very difficult and technical point of law, and at present he could not say more on that subject. The intention of the Vote was very simple. It had come to his knowledge that in certain districts there was no school open for parents to send their children to except a school of a particular denominational character. In those cases if the parents desired that a new school should be built for their children to attend, no doubt under Section 8 of the Act of 1902 it would be open for any person to object to that proposal. After the Board of Education had heard the objections and decided in favour of the parents, it would be open for the parents to apply to the Board of Education for a sufficient grant to put up the necessary school. This sum was not intended for general distribution over all the counties in the country. It was intended for the purpose of providing against particular cases of tyranny, and it would, he believed, prove ample for the purpose.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was glad that the Attorney-General had entered the House. It appeared to him that Section 96 of the Act of 1870 prevented the application of the £100,000 in the way proposed by the Government. The President of the Board of Education had referred to

977
the matter as difficult and complicated. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to him to be a very clear case. There seemed to be no doubt whatever that without amending the Act of 1870 they could not apply any sum out of a Parliamentary Grant in the way proposed. In some way or other the Government were going to make a gift of this sum to the local authorities, not, he presumed, as part of the Parliamentary Grant, but in some other form, towards the building or enlarging of schools. He did not know that that could be done. Of course, there was Section 9 of the 1902Act, but that did not appear to provide for any grant by the central Government towards the building of a new school. There were one or two other points which he wished to put to the Government in regard to the administration of the Board of Education. There was the dispute between the Swansea local authority and the managers of the non-provided schools—not only Church of England schools, but Roman Catholic schools also. The managers of the non-provided schools had taken up the position that they should be treated in an equal manner with the provided schools as to allowances for cleaning, lighting, and teaching; but they had been resisted by every means and evasion by the local education authority. The Board of Education, when appealed to, whether presided over by a Conservative Minister or by a Liberal or Radical Minister, had uniformly decided in favour of the managers, and against the local education authority. There had been one long continued struggle between the managers and the local education authority. The last question raised was that the teachers should receive the same salaries in the non-provided schools as in the provided schools and the managers had pointed out that unless they could pay the same salaries their efficient teachers would necessarily leave their schools, and go elsewhere. The fact was that the desire of the local education authority was to starve the non-provided schools out of existence. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] He made that charge perfectly. The local education authority said to the managers of the voluntary schools—"You fix the salaries of the teachers, and we will see whether we can do anything in the matter." In
978
truth they forced the managers to undertake the responsibility of paying the salaries of the teachers out of their own pockets if the local education authority could wriggle out of their responsibility. That was not a position to adopt if they wished to secure the efficiency of education. All this conduct was animated simply by religious bigotry and intolerance. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the responsible Minister for Education, would venture to say a word in support of the conduct of that local authority, or that any hon. Member opposite, however bitter a Nonconformist he might be, would rise in his place to defend their action. He wished to know what steps the Government proposed to take in order to secure justice in the matter. He understood that the competent teachers were leaving the voluntary schools, and those who suffered most were the children. He insisted that a strong case had been made out for the interference of the Government in the interests of education itself. He had been furnished by a gentleman who was not a Conservative in politics, who recently won a seat on the county council in Monmouthshire, with a letter in which it was stated that he fought his election distinctly on the basis of fair play for both the non-provided and provided schools; and he added on behalf of his constituents that a strong voice had been raised against the unjust treatment meted out to the non-provided schools by the local education authority. He asked the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, whom they all knew to be a fair-minded man, whether it was a fact that there had been this unfair treatment of the non-provided schools in Monmouthshire, and what steps the Government intended to take in order to secure that justice should be done in the matter. He hoped that this grievance, which was both religious and educational, would be amended.
*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,)said that the noble Lord had brought before the House a point of law in connection with a Vote to be made in regard to education, which involved a question of great importance, having reference to the powers of the House respecting Votes of Supply and its relation to Parliament.

979
If he fully understood the point raised by the hon. Member, it might be stated in these terms: —By the Act of 1870 further grants towards the erection of voluntary schools were prohibited. The practice of making these grants had been established for many years, and the grants made by the House of Commons from time to time in aid of the building of voluntary schools were afterwards sanctioned by Appropriation Acts. It was now proposed to sot aside a sum with a view to assisting the building of schools under circumstances which had been indicated by his right hon. friend. Of course the House would observe that the conditions since 1870 had entirely changed, and therefore it might well be that while Parliament some thirty-seven years ago considered that the policy of assisting school buildings should come to an end, they might now under the altered conditions take an entirely different view of the educational policy which was calculated to serve the national interest. But still, although the conditions had changed, the constitutional difficulty remained. Undoubtedly there was a statutory prohibition against the voting of money for this purpose, and he supposed it might be said and might very well be argued that while Parliament, consisting not only of this House, but of the Lords, prohibited a Vote of money for this purpose until the Act of Parliament had been repealed, such a Vote would be unconstitutional. That contention he agreed rested upon very strong grounds, but there still remained the far more interesting question of the method or the machinery by which a change in the prohibition of the Act of 1870 could be effected. It would be a strong thing to hold that, under conditions which had entirely changed, in the lifetime of a generation, a statutory provision could interfere with the constitutional privilege of the House to vote supplies for any purpose which they thought was necessary. Assuming that the statutory prohibition existed, how could it be removed? Every Vote of the House, before it could be operative, became effective by means of an Act of Parliament, and he knew of no legal principle by which they could differentiate between the operative effect of statutes other than the Appropriation Act, and of that Act itself, which was an Act of Parliament, giving
980
legislative authority to a Vote of the House. It might well therefore be, although it was open to discussion, that although the ordinary function of an Appropriation Act was simply to take a sum out of the Consolidated Fund and apply it to satisfying Votes which the House had passed in Committee, there was nothing which would prevent its being applied to any purpose to which Parliament thought fit to apply it. It was quite possible that by means of an Appropriation Act passed by both Houses the statutory prohibition would be removed.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would just like to ask which clause of this Bill could possibly be regarded as a repeal of the Act of 1870.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood that there was no express repeal of an Act in question; he was referring to the Appropriation Act, by means of which all the money Votes of the House became effective, because the statute took the sum out of the Consolidated Fund and applied it to the object to which it had been devoted by a Resolution passed in Committee. If the House thought proper to decide under the altered conditions in which we lived that a sum of money might be granted for a prohibited purpose and an Appropriation Act was framed so as to give the force of statute to that Resolution, and that Act were passed by both Houses of Parliament, he thought they might contend that that was a perfectly constitutional and orthodox way of repealing the Act which imposed the prohibition. He spoke with some diffidence, because he knew lawyers might well hold a different view. The difficulty might be obviated by a Bill, which would appear to be a simpler plan, but that course would set a precedent which would lead to a multiplication of statutes. On the whole, the Appropriation Act seemed to be the better way of making operative the decisions of the House of Commons. The matter was, however, one of very considerable difficulty, and the House in coming to a conclusion must not confine itself to the decision of the question whether the prohibition could be removed in the way he had indicated, but must devote its attention to the larger question of the way in which the House might exercise its privileges and vote supplies for any

981
purpose that it wished. As to the Swansea dispute he did not understand that the noble Lord desired to reflect upon the conduct of the Education Department, but that he was endeavouring to reflect upon the conduct of the education authority in Swansea in regard to the managers of the schools, and he had imputed motive to the local education authority which might or might not be well founded. He did not think, however, that that was a matter with which the House had any concern. The education authority had a right to exercise their function in connection with the administration of the Act as they chose, just as the managers of the schools were entitled to use their powers under the Act of 1902. The whole of the difficulty was due to the extraordinary and complicated machinery of that amazing statute, because under it the management of the school was vested in one body and the administration and control of expenditure in another authority. The managers of the schools had the right of engaging teachers, and the questions which arose as to the engagements of teachers and their salaries differed in a variety of circumstances, such as the indirect payment which a teacher might receive by reason of being allowed to occupy a house or by reason of participating in certain advantages which might attach to his office. All these advantages had to be considered before a conclusion could be come to as to the terms upon which a teacher was to be engaged. The local education authority had a right to take up the position that they had nothing to do with the engagement of teachers, and that the managers as trustees for schools must make the contract which they thought proper. They were not only entitled to take up that position, but the managers could force them to take it up. The managers had no right to throw upon the education authority the responsibility for fixing the terms; but, on the other hand, the education authority had no right to interfere with the managers in this regard. All the education authority could do was to control the expenditure, but that arose when the accounts were audited at the end of the year. They might then point out if they thought proper that in their opinion excessive sums had been paid to the teachers, but the answer to that was,
982
"We invited your suggestions as to the sums which ought to be paid. You refused to assist us and left us to use our own discretion." And, unless the education authority could show that the managers had acted negligently and with indifference in the discharge of their duties, no criticism of the expenditure could be entertained. His right hon. friend when appealed to would point out that the education authority had deprived themselves of any right to criticise when they refused to consider the terms at the suggestion of the managers. The whole difficulty arose from the fact that Parliament in its wisdom thought fit to fix the responsibility for education on two authorities. It, however, gave a power of appeal to the Education Department which he had no doubt when consulted would arrive at a solution which would be just to both parties.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the haste of the right hon. Gentleman to reply would seem to give rise to the impression that there was no other point to be answered with regard to education. But there were other points. Considerable apprehension had been caused among the members of the English Church in Wales at the policy of the Government in creating a Welsh Education Department and the appointment of Mr. Davies as the head of that Department. On a previous occasion the House was unable to obtain any reply to the question as to what steps had been taken to ascertain that Mr. Davies was the best person to fill that position, and whether there were not other gentlemen better qualified by being acquainted with the Welsh language and having in other respects equally good qualifications with Mr. Davies. The House was told that that gentleman's appointment was largely due to the fact that he was well acquainted with Welsh opinion on the subject. What had occurred at Question-time had made his apprehension still more acute. Last week he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the application of the local education authority to close a particular Church school in Denbighshire—the school at Llanychan. The reply was that the application had been received, but

983
there had been no time to read it. Today he had again put the Question, this time in two parts. That Question was, first, To ask the President of the Board of Education, if he could now state what grounds the local Education Authority for Denbighshire had advanced for holding the school at Llanychan to be unnecessary; and, secondly, what action the Board of Education proposed to take in the matter. He was quite prepared to hear that the Board of Education had not had time to consider the application, but he was not prepared for the answer to the first part of his Question—that the Board had not as yet been informed of the grounds on which the closing of the school was considered necesssary. Was he to understand that the education authority sent in an application without stating the grounds?
MR. MCKENNAsaid the education authority had applied to close the school without stating their grounds, but they had grounds which they would state.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid if that was so the proper answer to the local authority would have been that no attention would be paid to the application until the grounds for it were given. Under the Act of 1902 there was a section which said the Board of Education should without unnecessary delay determine whether a school was necessary or not, and that in arriving at the determination they should have regard to the instruction, the wishes of the parents, and other matters of that sort.
MR. MCKENNAsaid no attempt would be made to settle the question at all until they had the facts before them. No steps had been taken.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the school might be closed without their having had any opportunity of showing why it should not be closed, and he was confirmed in his suspicion of the dangers of the Welsh Department with a man at the head of it chosen, apparently without any competition with other people, on account of his sympathies with the Welsh revolt. According to the section which had been quoted, a school could not be considered as unnecessary unless the
984
average attendance had been below thirty. In the school in question from May 1st to August, 1906, the attendance was thirty-four; in the next six months it was twenty-nine, which was partly due to an epidemic of mumps, and the children could not get back to their duties. He contended, therefore, that there was no ground for closing the school, because it had not been proved that the attendance was below thirty. There was a council school some little distance away from the church school, and the master of that school, accompanied by the minister of the Methodist Chapel adjoining, he understood, had been visiting the parents of children going to the church school with the object of trying to persuade them to keep their children away until it was possible to prove that the attendance was below thirty. If that was the way in which Welsh public opinion was to be interpreted by the Board of Education they would have a good deal to say against the new Welsh Department.
MR. MCKENNA: Mr. Davies has not yet entered upon his functions.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was only expressing the hope that when the gentleman did enter upon them he would not follow the course suggested by the Denbighshire local education authority.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid in reference to the new vote of £100,000 for building schools, they were, of course, all bound to accept the statement of the Attorney-General on a point of law, and he would not venture to dispute it. But he had been accustomed all his life to study the Education Acts and the history of Education Grants, and he thought that: the Attorney-General would find that although grants were made as long ago as 1833, they did not for a long time depend upon any Act of Parliament. The Attorney-General had told them that the grants were regulated by a series of statutes, and that the money was assigned under the Appropriation Act. To his knowledge there was no statute whatever previous to the Act of 1870 which provided for any education grant of any sort at all. The grants were made until 1870 solely under the minutes of

985
the Department, and were placed in the Votes for the year, but they never had any statutory authority until the Act of 1870 was passed.
SIR JOHN WALTON: There is the Schools Sites Act.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that that did not provide for grants. It made certain provisions on the acquirement of sites by local authorities, but it did not provide for any grants whatever. Mr. Forster and the Government of Mr. Gladstone intended that building operations should be the work of the locality, and at the expense of the locality, and that the means whereby grants could be earned from the National Exchequer should be provided by the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had in his Department a legal advisor. Surely, when this amount of £100,000 was entered for the first time the right hon. Gentleman consulted the legal adviser. If the legal adviser had expressed, as he was inclined to think he must have done, that there was some ground for doubting the legality of the grant, did the, right hon. Gentleman then consult the law officers of the Crown? He went further in his objection to their grant than the mere legal irregularity which it involved. It did not mean merely a contravention of the Act of Parliament. What did it mean? It meant that they were giving to one part of the United Kingdom those means which other parts of the United Kingdom had to provide for at their own expense in order to obtain yearly grants out of the Exchequer. Why should this be accorded to England and Wales alone? [An Hon. Member: Scotland.] Scotland had no such grant, and it was an injustice which she shared with Ireland. The policy embodied in the two great Education Acts had been departed from without taking legal advice, and in flagrant defiance of the fundamental policy of those Acts.
COLONEL R. WILLIAMSsaid they had often opposed the principle of legislation by reference, but the Government now appeared to have introduced an entirely new principle, that of legislation without any
986
reference at all, because this Bill was going to repeal Acts which had never been mentioned. He would like the Secretary to the Board of Education to elucidate somewhat the answer which had been given with regard to the difference in the treatment meted out to provided and non-provided schools. The Minister for Education had given a very clear exposition of the case, but in the end it simply amounted to this, that the Board of Education had to judge what was reasonable. What was the test of reasonableness to be applied to schools in different parts of the country? He would like to know why the carrying out of certain requirements in the case of a provided school was considered reasonable when spread over a period of seven years, and why in the case of a non-provided school a period of six months only was considered long enough to fulfil similar requirements?
SIR J. RANDLESsaid this appropriation of £100,000 illustrated the real grievance so far as it affected Nonconformity. The Minister for Education had told them that it was proposed, wherever there was a grievance in a single school area, to provide some special remedy to enable them to build a provided school. The difficulty referred to was not a small point, because if it was known in any particular district that it was possible simply by an application to the Board of Education to get some assistance for a provided school that fact alone would be sufficient to secure that misuse of opportunity which so often resulted in such cases. If the Minister in charge of a Bill the effect of which would be to deduct 15 per cent. from the pay of the teachers in non-provided schools would withdraw his proposal and bring in a measure to deal fairly with the question there would be some prospect of a reasonable compromise being arrived at.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss matters of legislation.
SIR J. RANDLESsaid he was rather surprised at one of the statements made by the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that

987
the managers appointed the teachers. He had always been under the impression that the managers nominated the teachers and that they were appointed by the local education authority. The names of the teachers were sent in by the managers, but they could be either accepted or rejected by the local education authority.
MR. RAWLINSON: moved that the Bill be read a third time this day six months. The express enactment of the Act of 1870 forbidding the making of a grant for any particular purpose was impliedly being over-ruled by the Appropriation Bill. Would the Attorney-General give him an instance where such a repeal had ever been made before? It was an unconstitutional proceeding, and he submitted that no such case had ever occurred in the history of Parliament. It was sufficient for his purpose to say that it had never been done before. It was not the object of the Appropriation Bill to repeal an enactment by a side wind. He was glad to hear from the Attorney-General that the Board of Education intended to enforce the rights of managers of the schools. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the position which he had taken up on the question of the appointment of teachers. He begged to move.
SIR F. BANBURY,: in seconding the Amendment, said the Attorney-General could not deny that many legal authorities might take a view contrary to that which he had expressed. That being so, and in view of the fact that it was now one o'clock, he thought the Amendment should be agreed to. The debate was brought on at eleven o'clock when no one expected it. It had practically been proved that the Government were committing an illegal act. The Solicitor-General had not been able to get up and confirm the opinion hesitatingly given by the Attorney-General. The purpose to which the £100,000 was to be applied might be very good, but the money was not to be applied to all parts of the Kingdom. Scotland and Ireland were excluded from this illegality. He was rather surprised that no Member from Ireland had got up to say that he was prepared to take
988
a share of the £100,000, and run the risk of the Vote's being illegal. If such a proposal had been made when the Conservative Government was in office, hon. Members on on all sides would have protested against its being sanctioned. He would be the last to suggest that the President of the Board of Education knew that he was doing an illegal act. He excused the right hon. Gentleman because he had only just succeeded to the office. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had the facts at his finger ends, was not present. That was another reason why the Bill should not be then disposed of. The Attorney General had apparently just returned from a pleasant evening party, and it was not fair that he should be committed to a legal opinion without mature deliberation.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word, 'now' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
MR. FORSTERsaid he was surprised, after the speeches which had been made, at the silence which was as discreet as it was unusual on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Act of 1870distinctly debarred the Government from applying the £100,000 in the way proposed. The House had it on the authority of the learned Attorney-General that, although the section of the Act of 1870 was out of date, it still remained the law of the land. The Attorney-General had committed himself to the opinion that the voting of the money until Parliament had repealed the section prohibitory was illegal. The only way in which the Attorney-General could get over the difficulty was that one Act of Parliament passed by this House and by the House of Lords, if sanctioned by the Sovereign, might be taken to over-ride any previous Act of Parliament with which it might be in conflict, and that the Appropriation Act might enable such a thing to be done. They were not now dealing with the Appropriation Act; that was passed only at the end of the session. He admitted that the question was one of great difficulty and complexity, and he asked the House if it was fitting and

989
proper at one o'clock in the morning that they should deal with a matter which the Attorney-General himself declared involved far-reaching constitutional issues. He was confident that they on that side of the House had not the slightest intention of dividing against the Bill. [An HoN. MEMBER: Why not?] He did not think that his Party had ever committed themselves to a course of that kind; and they would not on the present occasion; but in order to afford
time to deal with the great and important constitutional question involved, he begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. H. W. Forster.)
The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 218. (Division List, No 47.)

AYES.

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

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Smith, Abel H(Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith, F. E (Liverpool, Walton)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Wilson, A Stanley(York, E. R.)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,

Hunt, Rowland

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

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Tellers for the Ayes—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Lord Balcarres and Mr. Forster.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

Crosfield, A. H.

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. Annan

Dalziel, James Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Alden, Percy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Byles, William Pollard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Elibank, Master of

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Essex, R. W.

Barry, Redmond J(Tyrone, N.)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Everett, R. Lacey

Beale, W. P.

Cleland, J. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Beauchamp, E.

Clough, William

Ferens, T. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clynes, J. R.

F french, Peter

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

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

Findlay, Alexander

Bennett, E. N.

Cooper, G. J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Fullerton, Hugh

Boland, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Cory, Clifford John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cowan, W. H.

Glover, Thomas

Branch, James

Cox, Harold

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Brodie, H. C.

Crean, Eugene

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gulland, John W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Menzies, Walter

Seely, Major J. B.

Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

Mond, A.

Shackleton, David James

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, E. S.

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mooney, J. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morse, L. L.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harvey, W.E(Derbyshire, NE.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden, John Patrick

Murphy, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh-

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Straus, B.S. (Mile End)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Summerbell, T.

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

Sutherland, J. E.

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Shee, James John

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Partington, Oswald

Tomkinson, James

Jowett, F. W.

Paul, Herbert

Toulmin, George

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wadsworth, J.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

Walsh, Stephen

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walters, John Tudor

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wardle, George J.

Lambert, George

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

Waring, Walter

Lamont, Norman

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Radford, G. H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

White, George (Norfolk)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lough, Thomas

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

William, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Wills, Arthur Walters

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robinson, S.

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

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Winfrey, R.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Rose, Charles Day

Tellers for the Noes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

M' Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Runciman, Walter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he desired to repeat a question which had not been answered, as to the appointment of Mr. Davies to the Welsh Education Board. They had not been told what the qualifications of Mr. Davies were, or why he had been appointed. They did not know what previous educational work he had done, or in what way lie was fitted to discharge the duties of his office. The appointment was of a most important and novel character, and the House ought to know why this gentleman had been selected. The House had had no adequate explanation why provided and non-provided schools should not be
992
treated on the same basis and given equality of treatment. He hoped the Government even now would take the opportunity of reassuring hon. Members who wished to see fair play to all schools, not only in Wales but in England.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: was perfectly certain that those who were acquainted with the educational problem throughout the United Kingdom would admit that England, Scotland and Wales, were far ahead of Ireland, both in the way in which education was carried out, and in all the sanitary appointments of the schools. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago held out some hope that Ireland would at last through a Liberal Government receive assistance to a large and substantial amount. The right hon.

993
Gentleman said it was unnecessary for him to assure hon. Gentlemen that within the limits of his possibilities and opportunities, it would be his desire to give effect to that hope, by translating it into concrete action. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say that resistance to the claims of Ireland or any other part of the Kingdom did not rest in the long run with the officials of the Treasury. The responsibility rested with the Government, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that so far as his legal power allowed he would see, in regard to educational matters in which he thought Ireland had a real grievance, that Irish funds were not unduly encroached upon and that the Imperial Exchequer should contribute; that in the course of the next few months he would go carefully into the matter and see how far it was possible to deal with it. An opportunity was now given to the right hon. Gentlemen to explain how those words were going to be justified, and whether it would not be possible for him, if he had found it inconsistent with something he had said in the meantime, to hold out an assurance that some of the many terrible pains and penalties under which the youth of Ireland suffered, first of all in proceeding to school in the depths of winter over rough roads, and having then to sit, perhaps ill-clad, without a fire, the whole day through, were going to be removed. Hon. Gentlemen, when these appeals were made, seemed to think the circumstances were exaggerated, but they were not. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland said he approached the subject with sympathy and that at the earliest possible moment he would remove the blot from the government of Ireland. The present Chief Secretary said he understood that every child was expected to bring a piece of peat with him to the school-house so as to build up a fire to warm the children for the rest of the day. Since the ancient statute was passed the circumstances had changed; parts of the country which were then covered with peat were entirely altered. There was now no peat, and it was impossible for these little children to bring it to school. When one had regard to the large amount of money that was given to Scotland and England for education it seemed very hard that a
994
small amount could not be given to Ireland to remove this crying evil which was a disgrace and a shame to the Government. Even the Attorney-General for Ireland said that primary education in Ireland had been most shamefully neglected in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of hundreds of thousands as though they were mere bagatelles. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that they had been face to face with a great difficulty, but it had been removed. If primary education was to be made good, and teachers properly paid, the Government would by some means or other secure funds for that primary education which every member of the Government regarded as being of as much importance in Ireland as in England, and which must be dealt with and dealt with quickly. There they had the opinions of two members of the Government. A third member of the Government, who had since been appointed to the Embassy at Washington, had said that the salaries of Irish teachers were inadequate, and had held out a promise of improved remuneration. He had spoken of the excellence of Irish teachers, and said, as to the question of how reforms were to be effected, that in the first place more money was required, and all he could do was to plead for the liberal treatment of Irish education, because without more money very much could not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated emphatically that the only way to consider grants in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales was to approach the whole question on the basis of population. On referring to the figures they would be appalled at the injustice done to Ireland. In 1901–2 England had £9,500,000; Scotland, £1,333,000; and Ireland, £1,387,000. There was equality between Ireland and Scotland, because there was equality of population. But to come to the figures of the present year. England in 1907–8 had £13,500,000; Scotland, £2,255,400; Ireland, £1,408,000, though the population of the two latter countries was practically identical. It could not be said that Ireland was fairly treated, with the school buildings tumbling about their

995
ears in many places. The sanitary condition of the schools, in large towns like Belfast, where the population had grown during the last twenty or thirty years, was quite inadequate. The buildings were often old, and the children were herded together so closely during the time they were being taught that it really moved one's heart to see them. It was impossible, in such conditions, that the children could take the best advantage of the education afforded; besides which, the conditions were injurious to their health and to the race as a whole. Many of the evils from which Ireland suffered were due to the fact that children were confined in inadequate and rotten schools. It could not be expected that they would grow up to be strong and healthy men and women; nor could they hope for improvement, unless the right hon. Gentleman carried out some at all events of the many specious promises which he made last year. Hon. Members representing the wealthier parts of England and Scotland had very little idea of what went on in the poorer parts of Ireland. He challenged anyone in the House to read the speeches delivered by the three responsible Ministers to whom he had referred—who still sat silent and would not get up and answer the arguments which had been addressed to them—and prove that they had carried out the pledges given in those speeches.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the hon. and gallant Member must know that the first Order down for that day was a discussion upon primary education in Ireland.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: I was quite aware of it.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it appeared to him that the hon. Member had just been rehearsing the speech he intended to deliver in the debate on primary education. He sincerely hoped that having heard that speech they would not be obliged to listen to it again on some future occasion. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to speak on the subject, but after having kept them up with a long discourse now it would be scarcely fair and not in accordance with the Standing Order to have a repetition of the same speech that day. With reference to the grant of £100,000, it had always been the practice, when such grants were made to this country for education, that equivalent grants should be made to Scotland and Ireland. Last year, when £1,000,000 was allocated to education in this country, it was clearly understood that equivalent grants would be made to Scotland and Ireland. On behalf of Ireland he wished to put in a claim for such a grant.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTasked the Attorney-General if he agreed with the view that the Vote was illegal.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I did not say that it was illegal. What I said was that it might need statutory authority.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes 54. (Division List No. 48.)

AYES

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beauchamp, E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Agnew, George William

Bellairs, Carlyon

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Byles, William Pollard

Alden, Percy

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bennett, E. N.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Chance, Frederick William

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Boland, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Hrbert Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Branch, James

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barnard, E. B.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cleland, J. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C.

Clough, William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brooke, Stopford

Clynes, J. R.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Bryce, J. Annan

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Beale, W. P.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Cooper, G. J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Richardson, A.

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

Kilbride, Denis

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cory, Clifford John

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cowan, W. H.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cox, Harold

Lambert, George

Robinson, S.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamont, Norman

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crean, Eugene

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rose, Charles Day

Crosfield, A. H.

Lehmann, R.C.

Rowlands, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Runciman, Walter

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-und.-Lyne)

Duncan, F. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lupton, Arnold

Seely, Major J. B.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shackleton, David James

Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

McVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Essex, R. W.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Fenwick, Charles

M' Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strauss, E. A. Abingdon)

F french, Peter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Summerbell, T.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Sutherland, J. E.

Findlay, Alexander

Meehan, Patrick A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Menzies, Walter

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mond, A.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Gill, A. H.

Montagu, E. S.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Mooney, J. J.

Tomkinson, James

Glover, Thomas

Morse, L. L.

Toulmin, George

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Gooch, George Peabody

Murphy, John

Wadsworth, J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster)

Walsh, Stephen

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Walters, John Tudor

Gulland, John W.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

Wardle, George J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waring, Walter

Hall Frederick

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Dowd, John

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Grady, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shee, James John

White, George (Norfolk)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Partington, Oswald

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Henry, Charles S.

Paul, Herbert

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Higham, John Sharp

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye,

Wiles, Thomas

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth,

Hogan, Michael

Pollard, Dr.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hudson, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Winfrey, R.

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Rea, Walter Russell Scarboro'

Jowett, F. W.

Redmond, John E. Waterford)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Richards, T.F. Wolverh'mpt'n

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Cross, Alexander

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cave, George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Banner, John S. Harmood

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Fell, Arthur

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Forster, Henry William

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Haddock, George R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Bull, Sir William James

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

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

Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edmd's

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Hills, J. W.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Younger, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Tellers for the Noes—

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Starkey, John R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Micholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 49.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Agnew, George William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Duncan C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Alden, Percy

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lupton, Arnold

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Barnard, E. B.

Everett, R. Lacey

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Micking, Major G.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.

Ffreneh, Peter

Manfleld, Harry (Northants)

Beale, W. P.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Markham, Arthur Basil

Beauchamp, E.

Findlay, Alexander

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Menzies, Walter

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

Gill, A. H.

Mond, A.

Bennett, E. N.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Montagu, E. S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Glover, Thomas

Mooney. J. J.

Boland, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morse, L. L.

Bowerman, C. W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murphy, John

Branch, James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gulland, John W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brodie, H. C.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brooke, Stopford

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Bryce, J. Annan

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Dowd, John

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

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

O'Grady, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Shee, James John

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Hemmerde, Edward George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chance, Frederick William

Henry, Charles S.

Partington, Oswald

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

Paul, Herbert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hogan, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cleland, J. W.

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Dr.

Clough, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J.

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

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Radford, G. H.

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cory, Clifford John

Kilbride, Denis

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

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richardson, A.

Cox, Harold

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Crean, Eugene

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robinson, S.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Rose, Charles Day

Summerbell, T.

Waterlow, D. S.

Rowlands, J.

Sutherland, T. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Runciman, Walter

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, George (Norfolk)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Scott, A. H.(Ashtonunder Lyne)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Whitehead, Rowland

Seely, Major J. B.

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

Toulmin, George

Wiles, Thomas

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

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wadsworth, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walsh, Stephen

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walters, John Tudor

Winfrey, R.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Waring, Walter

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

NOES.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd)

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Mr.Lonsdale and Mr. Courthope.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm G.(Petersfield)

MR. ASQUITH claimed,: "That the main Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 50.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bowerman, C. W.

Cooper, G. J.

Agnew, George William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Corbett, C, H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Branch, James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Alden, Percy

Broklehurst, W. B.

Cory, Clifford John

Allen, A Acland(Christchurch)

Brodie, H. C.

Cowan, W. H.

Allen, Churles P. (Stroud)

Brooke, Stopford

Cox, Harold

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crean, Eugene

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Crosfield, A. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Byles, William Pollard

Dalziel, James Henry

Barnard, E. B.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

Davies, W, Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Chance, Frederick William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Beale, W. P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Beauchamp, E.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cleland, J. W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh.)

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

Clough, William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bennett, E. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Collins, Stephen; (Lambeth)

Elibank, Master of

Boland, John

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

Essex, R. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rowlands, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Runciman, Walter

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

F french, Peter

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Findlay, Alexander

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seely, Major J. B.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shackleton, David James

Gill, A. H.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gooch, George Peabody

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S-

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Menzies, Walter

Stanley, Hn A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Gulland, John W.

Mond, A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Montagu, E. S.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mooney, J. J.

Summerbell, T.

Hall, Frederick

Morse, L. L.

Sutherland, J. E.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Tomkinson, James

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

O'Dowd, John

Wadsworth, J.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Grady, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Shee, James John

Walters, John Tudor

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Hudson, Walter

Partington, Oswald

Wardle, George J.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Paul, Herbert

Waring, Walter

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Waterlow, D. S.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Pollard, Dr.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jowett, F. W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, George (Norfolk)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

White, Luve (York, E.R.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Whitehead, Rowland

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Wiles, Thomas

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Lambert, George

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

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lamont, Norman

Richardson, A.

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Winfrey, R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Lough, Thomas

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

NOES.

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bull, Sir William James

Haddock, George

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpoo)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Cave, George

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

Starkey, John R.

Covendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Turnour, Viscount

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

Mr. Courthope and Mr. Bridgeman.

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

Younger, George

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Main Question put accordingly.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. Emmott (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: hoped that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with this important measure at that time of night. They had been occupied for several hours discussing a Bill which none of them had expected would be taken, and he hoped they would not be asked to embark upon a discussion of the Army (Annual) Bill to which the Secretary of State for War had himself put down two Amendments, and in regard to which he had issued two separate Memoranda, one of which appeared that afternoon for the first time. He was told that that Memorandum did not tally with the Bill, and he should think, having regard to the importance of the Bill and to the interest taken in it on both sides, the Government would not attempt to pass the measure at that hour. It was a Bill which had always taken a considerable amount of time to discuss, and he suggested that the Government should take the course which was most convenient to the House at large and adjourn the discussion. He moved that progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
MR. HALDANE: We desire to take the course which is most convenient to the House of Commons generally, and that is to finish this Committee at the sitting.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that after listening to the very courteous speech of the right hon. Gentleman he proposed to offer only a
1006
few words on this Motion. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members appeared to treat the Bill in a jesting manner. [An Hon. Member: You are doing that.] On the contrary he regarded the Bill as a very serious one, and if hon. Members were aware of the way in which it affected every officer and man in the Army, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers, they would think so too. [Laughter.] Some hon Members seemed to spend more time in the refreshment room than in the House.
*THE CHAIRMAN:The noble Lord is not entitled to make observations of that kind. He must confine himself to the Motion before the House.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he intended no reflection upon hon. Members by using the words "refreshment rooms," and if the Chairman would allow him he would substitute the words "smoking room." All he meant to say was that this Bill was not a jesting matter.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord must confine his observations to the Motion.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that one of the reasons why he supported the Motion was that this being a very important Bill affecting the whole of the British Army, it should not be discussed at that hour of the morning. He hoped, having regard to the fact that the House had got through a good deal of business, and that the right hon. Gentleman had seven pages of Amendments to the Bill, which had only recently been circulated, the Government would reconsider their decision, and allow the Bill to be discussed at amore reasonable hour.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: pointed out that whilst the Secretary of State for War was not responsible for the convenience of Members of the House he was responsible for the discipline of the Army. When a Minister in the position of the right hon. Gentleman got up and said he was consulting the convenience of the House of Commons, and not the discipline of the Army, that was a very

1007
strong statement to make. The Committee were entitled on a Bill of this kind, which in many respects was practically a new measure, and the private soldiers of the country were entitled, to more than the single sentence with which the right hon. Gentleman had dismissed them.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: supported the Motion to report progress, because in his opinion it was a serious thing for the Committee to be asked to embark on the discussion of so important a Bill at that hour in the morning. It was perfectly obvious that if the Government had not chosen to take the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill the discussion on this Bill would have been very far advanced by then. if not almost finished. The action of the Government in proposing to take the Bill at a time when the Committee, if not jaded, was in no humour to deal with a large amount of new matter, such as was contained in this Bill, showed that they were treating neither the House, the Bill nor the Army seriously. Had the Bill come up in the old hardy annual shape, there might have been some excuse for the course the Government had adopted, but that was not the case. The Bill contained a considerable amount of new matter, and it was absurd that the Committee should be asked to go into all the details of the complex Amendments to the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that last year when this Bill was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the House to give him a chance, as he was newly in office. That Bill was criticised, and the right hon. Gentleman met the criticisms very well, and gave a good many pledges as to what he would do this year. A large number of those pledges had been redeemed, and, as a result, a number of Amendments were made in this Bill. But it was important that the Bill should be considered, because there were more matters to discuss than had appeared in the Army (Annual) Bill for twenty years. Was it right, under these circumstances, that it should be discussed so early in the morning? Even taking the convenience to Members for
1008
granted, there was something more to consider, and that was the life and liberty of the Army. Having regard to the circumstances he thought it would be reasonable on the part of the Government to accept the Motion and make arrangements to deal with the Committee stage of the Bill at a more reasonable hour.
MR. ASHLEYreminded the right hon. Gentleman that very far reaching changes were proposed in the Bill. For the first time in military history power was given to try a soldier by Court-martial, or by his commanding officer, for any loss sustained by negligence or some error on his part. On active service he was to be confined for aggravated drunkenness. To discuss such important points at half-past two in the morning was not treating his Majesty's Army in the way in which it ought to be treated by the House of Commons.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Secretary of State for War had not given them an opportunity of studying the Memorandum, which was absolutely necessary to a proper understanding of the Bill in Committee. If the discussion was to be properly conducted, Members should be thoroughly cognisant of all the intricate matters raised by the various clauses of the Bill. Might he remind the right hon. Gentleman also that something sinister occurred in connection with this famous Memorandum, which, he thought, reached hon. Members about four o'clock that afternoon? It reached the Vote Office some days ago, and he would like to know why it was not circulated.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that had nothing to do with the Motion before the House.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was trying to show that the right hon. Gentleman, who alleged that he had consulted the convenience of the House by taking the Committee stage that night, had not consulted their convenience, because the document necessary to the proper discussion of the Bill in Committee had not been circulated.
*THE CHAIRMAN: What was done with the Memorandum in the Vote Office has nothing to do with the Motion before the House.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was trying to show that the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman that he had consulted the convenience of the House was not borne out by his action, because it was necessary, if the convenience of the House was to be consulted, that the Paper to which he referred should have been earlier in the hands of hon. Members. Was it not a fact that in connection with the discussions in Committee a certain Memorandum had been practically suppressed?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that out of order.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would go on to another point in connection with the matter. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had raised a point of the highest importance when the Bill was before the House on Monday last, and the Secretary for War had promised that it should be looked into. But in the document before the Committee there was nothing to show that he had looked into the question or to indicate what solution he offered on the point raised by the right hon. Baronet. He complained that the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the House at that time of the morning, pretending that the House, by going into Committee, would be able to do its duty by the armed forces of the Crown. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. If he persisted in proceeding, he was afraid that they would have a very long sitting.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid they were not accustomed to discourtesy from the Minister for War; and he was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have adopted such a tone towards the Committee in the half-dozen words which he had addressed to them. He had always looked upon the right hon. Gentleman
1010
as one of the most courteous Members of the Government, and he made his humble protest against the tone which he had adopted towards them, because they held that they had been extremely badly treated by the Government. They had just closured a measure which gave private Members an opportunity of raising important subjects.
*MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to reflect on the action of the House in applying the closure. It is quite out of order.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid it was a great hardship that they should be asked, at nearly a quarter to three o'clock in the morning, to discuss this important Measure, which other Members had shown to be a genuinely important Bill containing a lot of new matter. Had the Government acted according to their promise they would have got the measure by that time, and it would not have been necessary to continue that discussion until break. fasttime. He was afraid that the War Minister had been taking the advice of the Patronage Secretary, who liked bullying the House on these occasions. [Cries of "Order," and "Withdraw."]
*MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an offensive word to use.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he would withdraw the word "bullying" and substitute the word "worrying." The Patronage Secretary once told them that they were obliged to sit because he had pledged himself to the Prime Minister that a certain measure should be got through. Was he pledged to the Prime Minister once more to get the Army Annual Bill through Committee, and were they to wait until the right hon. Gentleman arrived at nine o'clock in the morning, as he did on a former occasion after an all night sitting?
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked if the Patronage Secretary was going to give them any reason why he refused to allow them to report progress. [An
HON MEMBER:Because you are wasting time.] That was not a proper hour at which to discuss new matters. They intended to discuss this Bill as fully as possible in order that the quantity of discussion might make up for its lack of quality. He really thought the Patronage. Secretary was exercising his powers of worrying the House to a considerable extent when he refused to explain why it was necessary to force that Bill through in that way. Already that evening an important measure had been forced through by the closure.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that as the Government did not appear to recognise the desirability of reporting progress it had become his painful duty to add to the very cogent arguments which had already been set forth as to why they should report progress. From eleven to two o'clock they had been discussing a very important measure, and it was not possible at that late hour to give the Army (Annual) Bill that careful attention and critical analysis which a Bill of such importance demanded. He had not had time properly to study the Bill himself or the important Memorandum issued with it. There was absolutely no reason why the Bill should be forced through that night. He appealed to the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Patronage Secretary to consider whether, after last year's experience, it would be wise in the interests of the Army and of the House to force the Bill through at a time when it was not possible to subject it to proper scrutiny and criticism. The Procedure Rules and the Consolidated Fund Bill had been dealt with at that sitting, and surely that was a good day's work.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid they were being asked to make radical changes in the form of the Army (Annual) Act. They were changing the specified times when the Act should come into force in the British Colonies, and that was a matter which could not be properly discussed at that hour of the morning. Then there was an entirely different type of punishment being established, which was quite new, and, in the interests of justice to the soldier, they ought to have a full opportunity of discussing it.
SIR F. BANBURY: hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the course he was going to take. He had introduced a new scheme, and the alterations proposed by the Bill were caused by that scheme. Hon. Members on that side of the House had received the scheme in a patriotic way, and they were anxious to give it every consideration. The Army (Annual) Bill did not need to be passed before the 30th of April, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give a reasonable time for its consideration. There was a proposal in the Bill in regard to the billeting of soliders. That was a matter which would involve a certain burden on the rates.
*THE CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member is discussing the Bill. That is not in order on this Motion. I think I must also remind the hon. Gentleman of the Standing Order in regard to repetition.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not wish either to discuss the Bill or to repeat himself. With all deference he submitted that he had not repeated himself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me remind the hon. Baronet that the Standing Order also refers to the repetition of what has been said by other people.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: pointed out that the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when others were making their speeches.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that owing to the lateness of the hour he was not in the House.
*THE CHAIRMAN:That has not the least connection with the matter. The hon. Member is much more likely to be guilty of repetition if he was not in the House.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid it was not through any fault of his that he was absent. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to take the management of the business of the House into his own hand, as had always been done by the senior Cabinet Minister present.
MR. LANE-FOX: strongly supported the Motion to report progress, on the ground that hon. Members had not had time to consider the details of the Memoranda which the Secretary of State for War had placed in their hands that afternoon and the Bill. That was not an hour when they could, with any prospect of credit to themselves continue the discussion.
Mr. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 196, Noes, 55. (Division List No. 51.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Elibank, Master of

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Essex, R. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Alden, Percy

Everett, R. Lacey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Alien, A. Acland (Christchurch

Fenwick, Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Allen, Charies P. (Stroud)

Ferens, T. R.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

F french, Peter

Meehan, Patrick A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Menzies, Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mond, A.

Barnard, E. B.

Fullerton, Hugh

Montagu, E. S.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gill, A. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Morse, L. L.

Barry, Redmond J(Tyrone, N.)

Glover, Thomas

Murphy, John

Beale, W. P.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Beauchamp, E.

Gooch, George Peabody

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bellairs, Carlyon

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Brien, Kendal (T'perary Mid

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

Gulland, John W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bennett, E. N.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Dowd, John

Boland, John

Hall, Frederick

O'Grady, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Shee, James John

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Branch, James

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Paul, Herbert

Brodie, H. C.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brooke, Stopford

Henry, Charles S.

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye

Bryce, J. Annan

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Higham, John Sharp

Pollard, Dr.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hogan, Michael

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

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Chance, Frederick William

Hyde, Clarendon

Raphael, Herbert. H.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Clarke, C. Goddard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cleland, J. W.

Jones, William (Carnorvonshire

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

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Richardson, A.

Clynes, J. R.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

King Alfred John(Knutsford)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cooper, G.

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robinson, S.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lambert, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cory, Clifford John

Lamont, Norman

Rose, Charles Day

Cowan, W. H.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Rowlands, J.

Cox, Harold

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Scott, A.H(Ashtonunder Lyne)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Seely, Major J. B.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lupton, Arnold

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

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Summerbell, T.

Sutherland, J. E.

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

White, John Henry (Halifax)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wardle, George J.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Waring, Walter

Wills, Arthur Walters

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

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

Tomkinson, James

Waterlow, D. S.

Winfrey, R.

Toulmin, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Wadsworth, J.

White Luke (York, E. R.)

Walsh, Stephen

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Walters, John Tudor

Whitehead, Rowland

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Haddock, George R.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Tumour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Corbett T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 52.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Ashley, W.W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Bowles, G. Stewart

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Turnour, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hemsley, Viscount

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hervey, F.W.F (Bury S. Edm'ds)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W

Hunt, Rowland

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barnard, E. B.

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

Alden, Percy

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bennett, E. N.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barry, Redmond J (Tyrone, N.)

Boland, John

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Branch, James

Henry, Charles S.

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

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

Brodie, H. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Hobart, Sir Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burns, Rt. Hn. John

Hudson, Walter

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

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hyde, Clarendon

Richardson, A.

Byles, William Pollard

Jardine, Sir J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Chance, Frederick William

Jones, William (Carnarvon-sh.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robinson, S.

Cleland, J. W.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Clough, William

Kilbride, Denis

Rose, Charles Day

Clynes, J. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rowland, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S.Pancras

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cooper, G. J.

Lambert, George

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

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

Lamont, Norman

Seely, Major J. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.

Shackleton, David James

Cory, Clifford John

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Cowan, W. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cox, Harold

Levy, Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Sutherland, J. E.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major G.

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wadsworth, J.

Essex, R. W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Walsh, Stephen

Everett, R. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A.

Walters, John Tudor

Fenwick, Charles

Menzies, Walter

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

Ferens, T. R.

Mond, A.

Wardle, George J.

F french, Peter

Montague, E. S.

Waring, Walter

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Waterlow, D. S.

Fullerton, Hugh

Murphy, John

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Gill, A. H.

Norton, Captain Cecil William

White, George (Norfolk)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Kendall(Tipperry Mid.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitehead, Rowland

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Dowd, John

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Grady, J.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Gulland, John W.

O'Shee, James John

Wills, Arthur Walters

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Partington, Oswald

Winfrey, R.

Hall, Frederick

Paul, Herbert

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pirie, Duncan V.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pollard, Dr.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 53.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Beale, W. P.

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Barnard, E. B.

Beauchamp, E.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Pollard, Dr.

Bennett, E. N.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bowerman, C. W.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Price, C.E (Edinburgh, Central)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

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

Branch, James

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)

Radford, G. H.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Higham, John Sharp

Raphael, Herbert H.

Brodie, H. C.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Brooke, Stopford

Hogan, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhamp'n

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hyde, Clarendon

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Chance, Frederick William

Jowett, F. W.

Robinson, S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rose, Charles Day

Clarke, C. Goddard

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rowlands, J.

Clough, William

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clynes, J. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seely, Major J. B.

Cooper, G. J.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

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

Lamont, Norman

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cory, Clifford John

Lehmann, R C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cowan, W. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cox, Harold

Levy, Maurice

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Summerbell, T.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Tomkinson, James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Toulmin, George

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major G.

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Frank, (Radnor)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walsh, Stephen

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walters, John Tudor

Essex, R. W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Everett, E. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A.

Wardle, George J.

Fenwick, Charles

Menzies, Walter

Waring, Walter

Ferens, T. R.

Mond, A.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

F french, Peter

Montague, E. S.

Waterlow, D. S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Fullerton, Hugh

Norton, Captain Cecil William

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Gill, A. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

Whitehead, Rowland

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Grady, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Shee, James John

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

Gulland, John W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Partington, Oswald

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Paul, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hall, Frederick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearson, W. H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

NOES.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bull, Sir William James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Ashley, W. W.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Balcarres, Lord

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cave, George

Cross, Alexander

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fell, Arthur

Bowles, G. Stewart

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Forster, Henry William

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Turnour, Viscount

Haddock, George R.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Valentia, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nield, Herbert

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Helmsley, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Younger, George

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

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Hunt, Rowland

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

TELLLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Starkey, John R.

Mr. Hills and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Lonadale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clause 2.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: moved an Amendment to provide that the Act should come into force on the same day in all parts of the British Empire. He said he had authority for that proposal because it was moved in Committee of the Army (Annual) Bill in a previous year, and was supported by every right hon. Member now sitting on the Treasury Bench. He would be interested to hear how right hon. Gentlemen opposite would reconcile their present opposition with the support they accorded to the proposal on a former occasion when they sat up all night in their endeavour to force it through. If the Committee gave the matter a single thought they would see that in these days of telegraphs and telephones it was the easiest thing in the world to enact that the Act should come into force on April 30 in all parts of the Empire. Why they should say that it should come into force in Europe and Malta and in the West Indies and America and not elsewhere he could not conceive. The Government did not scruple to spend the money of the nation in telegraphing speeches of Members to distant parts, especially when they were calculated to have a highly mischievous effect. But in this case they had only to cable a single code word. He appealed with confidence to all Ministers to support the Amendment, because they could hardly go against the votes which they had previously recorded in its favour.
Amendment proposed
"In page 2, line 36, to leave out from the word 'the' to the word 'one,' in line 37, and insert the words 'thirtieth day of April.' "—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid the proposition was that the Bill should be sent all through the Empire, at any rate to a place like the West Indies, as he read the Amendment, by April 30. The Bill would not become law until a short time before April 30; it had to pass through the other House and receive the Royal Assent. What was the consequence? The hon. Member had spoken of sending out word that the Bill had passed. But they had to send out the whole text of the Bill, otherwise the unhappy troops would not know under what law they were. And the reason of the different dates in the Bill was to allow of copies of the Act being circulated.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid the Amendment was one of those which, if carried out, would do a great deal to simplify the law as regarded the Army. The law was very difficult for soldiers and civilians to understand. The Amendment dealt with one of those reforms which doubtless were small and therefore did not catch votes at elections, and it was for that reason they were left alone by successive War Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would not be possible to cable the Bill throughout the Empire by April 30, but he thought it would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an assurance that a uniform date would be settled for the Bill to come into operation throughout the whole of the Empire. As it was at present, the Bill would come into operation in different places at different times—a circumstance which must lead to serious inconvenience. Another point was that if on a later clause a highly desirable Amendment was made, the dates put in the Bill would make it impossible for the reform to come into operation until the 31st July. It seemed to him that it would be much better, and much less likely to lead to trouble,

1023
inconvenience, and expense of cabling, if the Bill came into operation on the same day throughout the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman himself in the late Parliament voted for the alteration proposed; at any rate, some responsible members of His Majesty's Government had voted for it; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should have given them some much better reasons for refusing now to consider a principle which his own Party had voted for such a comparatively short time ago. The reform which his hon. friend proposed was not wide and sweeping; it simplified the law as regarded the Army, and that was an exceedingly desirable reform. Even if he could not accept this Amendment, it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to propose an Amendment of his own which would bring the Act into force on the same day throughout the Empire.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid there were no less than three dates for the Bill's coming into operation in different parts of the Empire. In the United Kingdom it would come into operation on the 30th April; in Malta and the West Indies on the 31st July; and elsewhere on the 31st December. If on the 31st July certain troops were on voyage between Liverpool and the West Indies, it was obvious that they would be "elsewhere." They would not be in the United Kingdom, they would not be in the Channel Islands, and they would not have arrived at the West Indies; therefore they were "elsewhere." Under those circumstances, those particular troops would not have the law applicable to them until the 31st December. And the effect would be that when they got to the West Indies they would find that the other troops already there would have had the new law in operation on the 31st July, but that they, by reason of their having been "elsewhere," would not get the benefit of the new law until the 31st December—six months later. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. He thought it would be rather unreasonable to expect that the Bill should be telegraphed to all parts of the Empire by the 31st of April. But the right hon.
1024
Gentleman might compromise the matter by making the date the 31st July for all the Empire. By that date it might be possible to send a copy of the Act to the forces all over His Majesty's dominions, including even the Channel Islands and "elsewhere,'' and so bring the Act into operation on one and the same date.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the Secretary of State did not deny that such an Amendment was desirable, but what he said was that it was impracticable. That did not appear to have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman two years ago when he voted for a similar Amendment. It was most important that the date on which the Army (Annual) Act came in force should be the same all over the Empire. Some very grave questions of military law might arise in consequence of the Amendments which had been made in the Act if it did not come into force in all the parts of the Empire at the same time.
MAJOR COATESsaid that one reason given by the Secretary of State for War why the Amendment could not be accepted was that it was impossible for the Bill to reach the various Colonies at the same time. So far as subsection (b) was concerned the Act was in force up to the 31st July, 1907, and surely that left them plenty of time to get a copy of the Act in Malta, the West Indies, and America.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid that in the Bill subsection (a) classified the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man together, and in those places the Army Annual Act expired on the 30th April. In the Colonies it did not expire until the 31st July. He could show that for certain purposes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were deemed to be Colonies, and—
*THE CHAIRMAN:That question does not arise under this Amendment.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that surely, in considering whether the clause should be

1025
amended or not, it was in order to point out that there was a glaring inaccuracy.
THE CHAIRMAN:The hon. Member for Rye has a new clause raising the point, and when we reach that it will be the right time to raise this point.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid it would be a matter of convenience that the Act for all purposes should come into operation on the same day in all parts of the Empire.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked for an expression of opinion as to whether it was not really desirable that the Bill should come into operation in every part of the Empire on the same day. None of the objections which had hitherto been raised against that proposal had much validity. If one day was unsuitable on account of telegraphic limitations another day might be found which would be perfectly suitable for all parts of the Empire. He did not think there was much in the argument that it was impossible to telegraph the Bill to the Colonies. There had been many instances of the reckless way in which the Government had telegraphed more or less useless information, and if they wanted to make economies in telegraphic charges he would suggest that it might be done by a readjustment of the matter which they thought it necessary to transmit.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: appealed to the Secretary of State for War to answer the arguments which had been addressed to him. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had quite realised how valuable the penny post might be to the War Office. If a uniform date had been selected there would have been no need to cable the matter at all; the penny post could have been used. He had preferred the old and more cumbersome method. That was thoroughly in accordance with the traditions of the War Office and the profession which the right hon. Gentleman adorned. He believed there was no other statute passed in recent years which came into operation on different dates in different portions of the Empire.
MR. CARLILEsaid the conditions under which soldiers served should be uniform. If the Amendment was not adopted the conditions would be very diverse, and that would not conduce to the efficiency of the Army. The soldiers should be allowed to have like privileges on the same day.
MR. MACVEAGH: Hear, hear! We will make it the first of April.
MR. CARLILEsaid that even at the risk of appearing to differ from some of the alleged improvements to which the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance, they thought that soldiers in every part of the Empire should have the same privileges. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring the proposed alterations, many of them of a most serious character, into operation on a series of dates—in some cases three months hence, and in others nine months. It was a most important matter, and he and his friends would certainly go into the Division lobby in support of the reasonable proposal of his hon. friend. They were determined that this matter should be thoroughly discussed. They did not consider the labour or the personal inconvenience to which they would be submitted; in fact they rather liked it.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not in order in the line of argument he was pursuing.
MR. CARLILEsaid he thanked the Chairman very much for his guidance; but he appealed to the Chairman to protect him from the interruptions of hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Divide."] The same consideration as to treatment ought to be given to our soldiers all over the Empire.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: desired to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the arguments which had been addressed to him. The debate began with a very courteous intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members had come under the sinister influence of the Chief Whip!
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was entirely irrelevant in his remarks, and he hoped that he would refrain from a repetition of those imputations.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he only wished to repeat the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he would answer the arguments addressed to him; otherwise the Committee proceedings would be reduced to a mere farce. They were perfectly entitled to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was entirely out of order, and
he must withdraw the expression about the sinister influence of the Chief Whip.
MR. L. L. CORBETTsaid that he withdrew the remark, but he must insist that he and his friends had been subjected to interruptions from below the gangway.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 54.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Maurice

Allen, Acland (Christchurch)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Essex, R. W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barnard, E. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Barran, Rowland Hirst

F french, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Beale, W. P.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Beauchamp, E.

Gill, A. H.

M'Micking, Major G.

Benn, W.(Tower H'mlets, S. Geo

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bennett, E. N.

Glover, Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gooch, George Peabody

Meehan, Patrick A.

Branch, James

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gulland, John W.

Mond, A.

Brodie, H. C.

Haldane, Rt.: Hon. Richard B.

Montagu, E. S.

Brooke, Stopford

Hall, Frederick

Morse, L. L.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murphy, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Byles, William Pollard

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Dowd, John

Chance, Frederick William

Henry, Charles S.

O'Grady. J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

O'Shee, James John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clough, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Partington, Oswald

Clynes, J. R.

Hogan, Michael

Paul, Herbert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Cooper, G. J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pollard, Dr.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnavonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cory, Clifford John

Jowett, F. W.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Cowan, W. H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Crean, Eugene

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Crosfield, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Dalziel, James Henry

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

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

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Richardson, A.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

White, George (Norfolk)

Robinson, S.

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rose, Charles Day

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitehead, Rowland

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Schwann, C. Ducan (Hyde)

Tomkinson, James

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

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

Toulmin, George

Wills, Arthur Walters

Seely, Major J. B.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

Shackleton, David James

Wadsworth, J.

Winfrey, R.

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

Walsh, Stephen

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walters, John Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wardle, George J.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waring, Walter

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Waterlow, D. S.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, Alexander

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Mr. Meysey-Thompson and Sir William Bull.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thomson, E. C.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 55.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Chance, Frederick William

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

F french, Peter

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Clynes, J. R.

Fullerton, Hugh

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gill, A. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Barnard, E. B.

Cooper, G. J.

Glover, Thomas

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gooch, George Peabody

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Cory, Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Beale, W. P.

Cowan, W. H.

Gulland, John W.

Beauchamp, E.

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

Crean, Eugene

Hall, Frederick

Bennett, E. N.

Crosfield, A. H.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hayden, John Patrick

Branch, James

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hemmerde, Edward George

Brodie, H. C.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Brooke, Stopford

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

Henry, Charles S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Edwards Frank (Radnor)

Higham, John Sharp

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Hobart, Sir Robert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Essex, R. W.

Hogan, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Jones, William(Carnarvons hire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Dowd, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Grady, J.

Summerbell, T.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shee, James John

Sutherland, J. E.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Partington, Oswald

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Paul, Herbert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Lambert, George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Lamont, Norman

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Toulmin, George

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr.

Wadsworth, J.

Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Levy, Maurice

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

Walters, John Tudor

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Wardle, George J.

Lough, Thomas

Radford, G. H.

Waring, Walter

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Waterlow, D. S.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Maclean, Donald

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

White, George (Norfolk)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Richardson, A.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robinson, S.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rose, Charles Day

Wills, Arthur Walters

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rowlands, J.

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

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Winfrey, R.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Menzies, Walter

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Mond, A.

Seely, Major J. B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Morse, L. L.

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

Murphy, John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

NOES.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Castlereagh, Viscount.

Hills, J. W.

Younger, George

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tellers for the Noes—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Viscount Turnour and Mr. Claude Hay.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 56.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Alden, Percy

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barnard, E. B.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hall, Frederick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Beale, W. P.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pollard, Dr.

Beauchamp, E.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn, W.(T'w'r'H'mlets, S. Geo.

Hemmerde, Edward George

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

Bennett, E. N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Radford, G. H.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Hon., S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Branch, James

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Brodie, H. C.

Hogan, Michael

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

Brooke, Stopford

Howard, Hon. Goeffrey

Richardson, A.

Bryce, J. Annan

Hudson, Walter

Ridsdale, E. A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hyde, Clarendon

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robinson, S.

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Rose, Charles Day

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rowlands, J.

Chance, Frederick William

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Laidlaw, Robert

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Clough, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seely, Major J. B.

Clynes, J. R.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

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

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Shipman, Dr. John. G.

Cooper, G. J.

Lehmann, R. C

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Levy, Maurice

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Cory, Clifford John

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lough, Thomas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Craig, Hebert J. (Tynemouth)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Summerbell, T.

Crean, Eugene

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Crosfield, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dalziel, James Henry

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Tomkinson, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Toulmin, George

Dunn, A. Edward(Camborne)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

M'Micking, Major G.

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walsh, Stephen

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walters, John Tudor

Elibank, Master of.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Wardle, George J.

Essex, R. W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Waring, Walter

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Fenwick, Charles

Mond, A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

F french, Peter

Morse, L. L.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitehead, Rowland

Fullerton, Hugh

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gill, A. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Glover, Thomas

O'Dowd, John

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Grady, J.

Winfrey, R.

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Shee, James John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Gulland, John W.

Partingdon, Oswald

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Paul, Herbert

NOES.

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fell, Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cave, George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Ashley, W. W.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Forster, Henry William

Balcarres, Lord

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Haddock, George R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Cross, Alexander

Hervey, F. W.F(Bury S. Edmd's

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Younger, George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Starkey, John R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Tellers for the Noes—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Harmood-Banner.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Turnour, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 57.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

Alden, Percy

Fullerton, Hugh

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Allen, A Acland(Christchurch)

Gill, A. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Dowd, John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Grady, J.

Barnard, E. B.

Gulland, John W.

O'Shee, James John

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hall, Frederick

Partington, Oswald

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Paul, Herbert

Beale, W. P.

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Beauchamp, E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bennett, E. N.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pollard, Dr.

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Branch, James

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Brodie, H. C.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Brooke, Stopford

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Bryce, J. Annan

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hudson, Walter

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hyde, Clarendon

Richardson, A.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Chance, Frederick William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robinson, S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kilbride, Denis

Rose, Charles Day

Clarke, C. Goddard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rowlands, J.

Clough, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clynes, J. R,

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lambert, George

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

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

Lamont, Norman

Seely, Major J. B.

Cooper, G. J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Shackleton, David James

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

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cory, Clifford John

Levy, Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cowan, W. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lough, Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Crean, Eugene

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Dalziel, James Henry

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Maclean, Donald

Sutherland, J. E.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major G.

Toulmin, George

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Villiers, Amherst

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wadsworth, J.

Essex, R. W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Walsh, Stephen

Everett, R. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A.

Walters, John Tudor

Fenwick, Charles

Menzies, Walter

Wardle, George J.

Ferens, T. R.

Mond, A.

Waring, Walter

Ffrench, Peter

Montagu, E. S.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Waterlow, D. S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Winfrey, R.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

White, George (Norfolk)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

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

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

NOES.

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

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Geo. D.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

Carlile, E, Hildred

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

Younger, George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. William Nicholson and Mr. Walrond.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Clause 3:—
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: moved the insertion of the words "good and sufficient" to describe the accommodation to be provided by the Army victuallers. The accommodation provided might be good, bad or indifferent, but according to this Clause, whatever the accommodation was it had got to be paid for in accordance with the prices specified in the Act. The answer which had on a former occasion been given to the Amendment was that there were penalties which could be imposed upon a licensed victualler if he failed to provide proper accommodation. Parliament ought to take care when proposing to give more ample payment for this provision that the accommodation should be good, and—
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill." [Opposition cries of "Monstrous!" and "Gag!"]
THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: speaking seating and covered, raised a point of order. He said that his Amendment had been proposed, and therefore, if the Secretary for War were in order
1038
in moving the closure at all, it must be the closure on the Amendment, and not on the clause. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to move such a Motion as that which he had proposed. He contended that the Question that Clause 3 be added to the Bill could not be put under the Rules of the House. Under the Standing Orders the only point that could be put when the closure was accepted was the question before the House.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the proceedings were regular. No question had been put from the Chair when the closure was moved.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I had been called on to move my Amendment.
*THE CHAIRMAN:That makes no difference. It is in my discretion to accept the closure, and the fact that the hon. Member had been called upon does not affect it at all. [Opposition cries of "Gag!"]
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: On the point of order, Sir. Do I understand that you in your discretion think that Clause 3 has been sufficiently debated?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot put a point of order to me now. [Opposition cries of "Why not?" and "Gag, gag!"]
Question put, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 58.

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gooch, George Peabody

Paul, Herbert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Alden, Percy

Gulland, John W.

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Allen, A Acland(Christchurch)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hall, Frederick

Pollard, Dr.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Barnard, E. B.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Radford, G. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hemmerde, Edward George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Henry, Charles S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Beauchamp, E.

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

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

Benn, W.(T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.)

Higham, John Sharp

Richardson, A.

Bennett, E. N.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ridsdale, E. A

Bowerman, C. W.

Hogan, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Branch, James

Hudson, Walter

Robinson, S.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hyde, Clarendon

Rose, Charles Day

Brodie, H. C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bryce, J. Annan

Jowett, F. W.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Burns, Rt. Hon John

Kilbride, Denis

Seely, Major J. B.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shackleton, David James

Byles, William Pollard

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Chance, Frederick William

Lambert, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamont, Norman

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Clarke, C. Goddard

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Clough, William

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Clynes, J. R.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Levy, Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancr's, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

Cooper, G. J.

Lough, Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Cory, Clifford John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tomkinson, James

Craig, Hebert J. (Tynemouth)

Maclean, Donald

Toulmin, George

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Crosfield, A. H.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Wadsworth, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Huge, Patrick A.

Walsh, Stephen

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon Reginald

Walters, John Tudor

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wardle, George J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Waring, Walter

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanely)

Menzies, Walter

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Mond, A.

White, George (Norfolk)

Elibank, Master of

Montagu, E. S.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Essex, R. W.

Morse, L. L.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murphy, John

Whitehead, Rowland

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ferens, T. R.

Nussey, Thomas Willians

Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rth'n)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wills, Arthur Walters

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Fullerton, Hugh

O'Dowd, John

Winfrey, R.

Gill, A. H.

O'Grady, J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hebert Jhn.

O'Shee, James John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, Alexander

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Starkey, John R,

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt, Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S.Edm'ds)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E.R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Major Coates

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Question put accordingly.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: On a point of order. Do I understand that it is your ruling that you accept the closure for any of the clauses of the Bill without their being discussed?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The question of accepting the closure is passed, but as
a matter of courtesy to the noble Lord I will frankly explain that I considered the Amendments were of rather a frivolous nature, and that the clause has been passed in the same form year after year.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 59.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cory, Clifford John

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Alden, Percy

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Crean, Eugene

Hogan, Michael

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crosfield, A. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Dalziel, James Henry

Hudson, Walter

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hyde, Clarendon

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies,W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barnard, E. B.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jowett, F. W.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kilbride, Denis

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Elibank, Master of

Laidlaw, Robert

Bennett, E. N.

Essex, R. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bowerman, C. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Lamont, Norman

Branch, James

Ferens, T. R.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ffrench, Peter

Lehmann, R. C.

Brodie, H. C.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Brooke, Stopford

Fullerton, Hugh

Levy, Maurice

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lough, Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Gooch, George Peabody

Macdonald, J. R (Leicester)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Chance, Frederick William

Gulland, John W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeigh, Charles.(Donagal, E.)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hall, Frederick

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Clough, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Clynes, J. R.

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cooper, G. J.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Charles S.

Menzies, Walter

Mond, A.

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

Tomkinson, James

Montagu, E. S.

Richardson, A.

Toulmin, George

Morse, L. L.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Murphy, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wadsworth, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Robinson, S.

Walters, John Tudor

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Rose, Charles Day

Wardle, George J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rowlands, J.

Waring, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Grady, J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Shee, James John

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seely, Major J. B.

White, George (Norfolk)

Partington, Oswald

Shackleton, David James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Paul, Herbert

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Pearson, W.H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Pollard, Dr.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Winfrey, R.

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

Summerbell, T.

Radford,. G. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

NOES.

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

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Fell, Arthur

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Haddock, George R.

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Lonsdale.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Clause 4:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
*MR. FORSTERmoved that progress be reported. They had, he said, been discussing the Bill for three hours, and he could not help thinking that in all the circumstances they would, by adjourning, do the best thing to preserve the credit of the House, of the Army, of the Government, and of all parties concerned. The discussion should be adjourned until it could be resumed when their feelings were less strong and excited, more especially when they were coming to a new and controversial clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress;
and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. H. W. Forster.)
MR. HALDANEsaid that this was an absolutely necessary Bill which must pass now. It was part of the machinery of the Army. The regrettable practice had grown up of discussing the Bill at length; but the duty of the Minister in charge was clear: he must get his Bill. Therefore on behalf of the Government he should resist the Motion.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that the Secretary of State for War talked as if the Bill were a matter of urgency, whereas it was not necessary to pass it before the 30th of April. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the gravaman of the charge the Opposition had to make

1045
against the Government and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in taking the Consolidated Fund Bill before this Bill. He would say without fear of contradiction that had this Bill come on immediately after eleven o'clock it would have been passed through Committee by one or two o'clock. The Committee must remember that when the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill was taken after closure, many of them on that side of the House were prevented from criticising it.
*THE CHAIRMANcalled the noble Lord to order, stating that he had already ruled that the hon. Member must not reflect on the action of the Committee in accepting the closure.
*VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that he was not reflecting on the action of the Committee, but on the conduct of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury in bringing forward the Bill.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must again call the hon. Member to order.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that it was owing to the Patronage Secretary having brought forward the Bill that evening that the House found itself unable to deal with it in a proper manner. The Committee on the motion of the Secretary for War accepted the closure—
*THE CHAIRMANI again call the noble Lord to order. He is reflecting once more on the decision of the Committee, and he is not entitled to do that. I must request the noble Lord to carry out my ruling.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the Chairman had failed to recognise the point he was endeavouring to make. [MINITERIAL cries of "Order!" and "Name."] He was not in the least reflecting on the decision the Committee had come to. But he was pointing out that the decision having been come to, and the Committee being in the mood to closure every clause, it was perfectly impossible to discuss with advantage the remaining portions of the Bill. In these circumstances he thought
1046
that the discussion should be postponed and progress reported.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsupported the motion to report progress on the ground that the proceedings had been reduced to a farce mainly by the action of hon. Members opposite. On two or three occasions that night hon. Members opposite had voted in direct opposition to the votes they gave on similar Amendments two years ago. That was a first-class example of Radical inconsistency.
*THE CHAIRMAN: What has that got to do with the Motion before the House, which is that I report progress?
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was endeavouring to show that the discussion should be adjourned because it was impossible that the Bill could be properly debated in view of the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He repeated that the proceedings of the Committee, owing to the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had been reduced to a pure farce. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would doubtless attempt to throw the blame on his colleagues and himself, and say that they were prolonging the debate unnecessarily. But the excuse was as absurd as it was transparent. Moreover, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, an hon. Member on that side of the House appealed to the Chairman for protection, and was informed that it was not to be expected in a long sitting like that that an hon. Member should receive a quiet hearing. For himself he regarded the proceedings that night as disgraceful.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not correctly stating what I said. I said that in a long sitting of this kind there was always a certain amount of interruption. I never said that it was impossible for an hon. Member to get a quiet hearing.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he apologised for misrepresenting what the Chairman had said. He had only adduced the remarks of the Chairman as a reason why the Motion of his hon. friend should be accepted. He would appeal

1047
to hon. Members below him if they had a sense of humour to see the absurdity of the situation. The Government Benches were crammed with Members who in each successive division piously and dutifully reversed their own votes. He should think that under those circumstances, seeing the length of time that they had been attempting to discuss the Bill and the way in which every reasonable attempt on their part to do so had been met by a Motion of the right hon. Gentleman to gag them—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
MR. CHARLES CRAIGapologised and said he was only alluding to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman always successfully moved the closure, and he thought that he ought now to accede to the request of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and agree to the Motion to report progress. He was sure if they were allowed then to disperse that on the next occasion when the Bill came before the Committee, provided it was at a reasonable hour of the day, he would have little difficulty in getting the remaining clauses of the Bill through.
MR. STANLEY WILSONrose to continue the discussion, but was received with loud cries of "Divide!"
MR. T. L. CORBETT:wished to endorse the complaint which his hon. friend had made. He could not hear what was said because of the shouts and insults from the Nationalist Benches. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to use the word "insults." [Loud cries of "But they are!"]
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he would withdraw the word on the Chairman's direction, but added that no Parliamentary word would describe what they in that portion of the House had heard.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do appeal to hon. Members to be as quiet as possible, and perhaps I may appeal to hon. Members who are doing most of the speaking not to provoke interruptions.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had not the slightest intention of provoking any interruption. He was exceedingly disappointed with the temper of the House, and to see that the temper of the War Minister grew shorter as the hours rolled on. He welcomed the presence of the Patronage Secretary and he earnestly hoped that the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for War had arrived at the decision that they would allow them to have a few hours rest. He could not understand the hurry to pass this measure. Passions had been excited and were rising to a great height. Another reason why they should adjourn was that the First Commissioner of Works had gone home to bed and left all the windows open. The rooms of the House were not in a fit state for any hon. Member to occupy, and he was already suffering from a cold in consequence of the draughts. He had been to the dining-room to get some supper and the draught there was so great that it was almost impossible to sit in the room. It might he all very well for hon. Members below the gangway to go into it, because it might cool their tempers and it would be an excellent way of improving the situation if they could get rid of them. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider his decision.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he appealed to the Secretary of State for War, not in the excitable tones of some of the recent speeches, but in the light of the coming dawn and in cooler tones to give way to reason and common sense. The discussion that night did not deal entirely with the existing position, because in the future the Army that they would have to deal with would be the Territorial Army which the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to create. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that if that Army was going to be a great force in the country a certain amount of coaxing would be necessary to induce men to join it? Would the Army think they had been fairly dealt with when this Bill was considered between 2.30 and five in the morning? That was a point the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider. It was not only the existing soldier that he ought to regard, it was

1049
the soldier of the future, the man to whom he was looking for his Territorial Army. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that when the soldier saw that his welfare, his future, and his discipline were laughed at in the House, he was likely to come forward as a willing recruit?
MR. LANE-FOXsaid one justification for moving to report progress was that on a former occasion when the Army (Annual) Bill was under discussion, a similar Motion was made at the instance of the President of the Board of Trade, seconded by the President of the Board of Education, and supported by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. As the example then set had led to the Treasury Bench it was an example they might well follow.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: It will never lead you there.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the promise made at an earlier period by the right
hon. Gentleman that he would give fair consideration to all the points raised had not been kept. He did not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman intended to go back on what he had said, but he thought that had the right hon. Gentleman fulfilled his pledge the debate would have gone more smoothly and have come to a conclusion earlier. At that stage of the morning it was impossible to deal with the controversial questions which would come before the Committee and therefore he strongly supported the Motion to report progress.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 60.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cory, Clifford John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Alden, Percy

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crean, Eugene

Higham, John Sharp

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hogan, Michael

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hyde, Clarendon

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Dunne, MajorE. Martin(Walsall

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jowett, F. W.

Benn, W.(T'wrHamlets,S.Geo.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bennett, E. N.

Elibank, Master of

Kilbride, Denis

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Branch, James

Fenwick, Charles

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Lambert, George

Brodie, H. C.

Ffrench, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Brooke, Stopford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lehmann, R. C.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Levy, Maurice

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lewis, John Herbert

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Chance, Fedrick William

Gooch, George Peabody

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gulland, Hon. W.

Maclean, Donald

Clough, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clynes, J. R.

Hall, Fedrick

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cooper, G. J.

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Micking, Major G.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Meehan, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tomkinson, James

Menzies, Walter

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

Toulmin, George

Mond, A.

Richardson, A.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Montagu, E. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wadsworth, J.

Morse, L. L.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walsh, Stephen

Murphy, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walters, John Tudor

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robinson, S.

Wardle, George J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rose, Charles Day

Waring, Walter

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Rowlands, J.

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Dowd, John

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Grady, J.

Scott, A H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Shee, James John

Seely, Major J. B.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Partington, Oswald

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Paul, Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

Pollard, Dr.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Winfrey, R.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Summerbell, T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Radford, G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

NOES.

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

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Cross, Alexander

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Turnour, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edmd's

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Viscount Valentia and Mr Forster.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 61.)

AYES.

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

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, Alexander

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bull, Sir William James

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

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, A. R.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gooch, George Peabody

Paul, Herbert

Alden, Percy

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Gulland, John W.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Hall, Frederick

Pollard, Dr.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barlow,Percy (Bedford)

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

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l

Barnard, E. B.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Radford, G. H.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Beauchamp, E.

Henry, Charles S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

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

Richards, T. F. (Wolverham'n

Bennett, E. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Richardson, A.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hogan, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. Lincoln)

Branch, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hudson, Walter

Robinson, S.

Brodie, H.C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Rose, Charles Day

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, John (Gateshead

Rowlands, J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jowett, F. W.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kearley, Hudson E

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Kilbride, Denis

Seely, Major J. B.

Byles, William Pollard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shackleton, David James

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Chance, Frederick William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lambert, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lamont, Norman

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Clough, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Clynes, J. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Levy, Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Lough, Thomas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cory, Clifford John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Cowan, W. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tomkinson, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Maclean, Donald

Toulmin, George

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Crosfield, A. H.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Wadsworth, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Walsh, Stephen

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Walters, John Tudor

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Wardle, George J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Waring, Walter

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunne, MajorE.Martin (Walsall

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Waterlow, D. S.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Menzies, Walter

White, George (Norfolk)

Elibank, Master of

Mond, A.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Essex, R. W.

Montagu, E. S.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morse, L. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lenwick, Charles

Murphy, John

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ferens, T. R.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Ffrench, Peter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wills, Arthur Walters

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Winfrey, R.

Fullerton, Hugh

O'Dowd, John

Gill, A. H.

O'Grady, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJhn.

O'Shee, James John

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Question, put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that Clause 4 was practically in the
nature of a new clause. He noticed that there were on the Paper Amendments to earlier clauses and he wished to know if they would be excluded from discussion by the taking of Clause 4 now.
*THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot go back on the clauses of the Bill, but we can go back on the clauses of the Army Annual Act.
VISCOUNT TURNOURmoved to omit the clause, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining its operation. The clause proposed to amend the 43rd section of the Army Annual Act by inserting after the words "to the prescribed General Officer" the words "or in the case of a soldier serving in India to such officer as the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in India with the approval of the Governor-General of India in Council may appoint." His objection to the clause was that it was better, more especially in India, that a private soldier should know exactly to whom he was to apply in case he had a grievance or a complaint to make against anybody. They did not make the matter simpler by making such changes in the Army Act at that hour of the morning, and it would be much better understood by the soldier if the Act remained as it was before. This was more important in a hot climate like India. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War to consider whether he could not dispense with the clause altogether. Unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to give him some satisfactory explanation he hoped the Committee would reject to clause.
MR. HALDANEexplained that the purpose of the clause was to redress a very real grievance which experience had shown that soldiers in India suffered from. In India, where the brigade organisation was used, brigades were often far away from the headquarters of the Army. A general officer was not always accessible. A brigadier had only in the eye of the law a colonel's rank, and it was found necessary in the case of soldiers serving in India to give them the right of making their complaints to such officers. It was to help the soldier and not to hinder him that this provision was being introduced into the Act.
MR. ASHLEYasked whether it would not be a good thing to extend the provision to South Africa also.
MR. HALDANEreplied in the negative.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the clause provided the right of appeal to the "prescribed general officer." The definition clause stated that the word "prescribed" meant prescribed by any rules of procedure under the Act. It was, therefore, competent for rules of procedure to be made prescribing the officer to whom the complaints might be addressed. If there was that elasticity existing now, why should they make an exception for India as against all the other territorial forces of the Crown?
MR. HALDANEsaid a brigadier was not a general officer. The prescribed officer meant a general officer holding a general officer's rank.
Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
MR. Whiteleyand Mr. Joseph Pease were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5:—
MR. ASHLEYmoved to substitute the word "detention" for the word "imprisonment." He imagined that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to accept that Amendment.
MR. HALDANEsaid that so far as the legal consequences were concerned, it did not very much matter which word was used. He would accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought the Committee were entitled to

1057
some explanation as to why Section 46, sub-section 6, of the Army Act should be altered. On referring to that sub-section it was found that in certain cases a soldier who was accused had the right to demand, when being tried, that the evidence should be taken on oath. He would have thought that in every case where a soldier was being tried for any crime the evidence should be taken on oath without the prisoner being put to the trouble of demanding that it should be so taken. He thought that the effect of the clause, if passed, would be that whenever an officer had a right to inflict summary punishment upon a soldier, he might take evidence without administering the oath.
MR. HALDANEsaid he could assure hon. Members that the effect of the Amendment would be for the benefit of the soldier. At present it was only where a commanding officer had power summarily to impose a sentence which exceeded seven days imprisonment that the accused had a right to demand that the evidence should be taken on oath. The right of the accused to have evidence taken on oath would now apply to all cases.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsuggested that the words "summarily" should be left out altogether.
"THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member could not propose to amend the clause after the question had been put "that the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. HALDANEwished to repeat that the clause as it stood was really in favour of the soldier.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. As a company officer he had often to distinguish between evidence given on oath, and that given without the administration of an oath.
Clause 6:—
MR. ASHLEYmoved an Amendment to limit the clause to military and naval
1058
prisoners and not to include within its operation, as the Bill proposed, civilians who might happen to be in a prison which was being used as a military prison. For instance, supposing a civilian inadvertently entered one of the ports of the Isle of Wight, he might be taken to the military prison under the clause, and that might be extremely undesirable.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 36 to leave out the word other,' and insert the word 'naval.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'other' stand part of the Clause."
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member was quite right in supposing that the clause would cover naval as well as military prisoners; but it was always possible that they might have to use these military prisons for other prisoners, and he pointed out that the section in the Army Act giving power to the Secretary of State to make rules was for the good administration of the prisons.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the words were settled by the naval and military authorities, but had he consulted the civilian authorities? What circumstances had happened since last year to make it necessary to bring within the scope of the Bill civilians as well as military and naval prisoners?
LORD BALCARRESalso thought that the point in regard to dealing with civilian prisoners should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman in his Amendment specifically proposed to substitute for the words "military prisoners" the words "military or other prisoners," and he told them that that was to apply the Act to naval prisoners as well as military prisoners. He dared say the naval authorities might be desirous that some such alteration should be made, but as the clause stood it applied to civilians, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a case for such a course.
MR. HALDANE:said that if the hon. Gentleman would look at Section 133 of

1059
the Army Act he would see that it was made lawful for the Secretary of State in this country and the Governor-General in India to take over an existing prison and declare it to be a military prison. When he did so there might be people in it who were not military prisoners, and the power of making rules given by Section 6 was in the interests of the prisoners who happened to be in the prison. The section did not extend the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, but it was introduced for the protection of any prisoners, civilian or otherwise, who might be found in the building which was being used or part of which was being used as a military prison.
VISCOUNT TURNOURthought that they had got some very valuable facts out of the right hon. Gentleman for the first time. He had suspected from the form of words used, "military or other prisoners," that it was intended to include not only naval prisoners but also civilian prisoners, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that that was the case. He did not think, however, that it should fall upon the military authorities, either here or in India, to take charge of civilian prisoners. Were they to understand that this sort of thing had taken place in the past, and that when these civilian prisoners were taken over they would come under military discipline, under the control of the military authorities?
MR. HALDANEsaid the power was given to the Secretary of State in this country and the Governor-General in India, but it was not given to the military authorities. It was thought wise that the Secretary of State and the Governor-General should have power to make rules which should apply to civilians who were in a building or part of a building which was being used as a military prison. The power was only given for the protection of the prisoners who happened to be in a prison so taken over, though it was a very unlikely case to arise.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid the side heading of the section was to the effect that it applied to rules relating to military prisons and prisoners. He understood from that, that it referred to military prisoners only, but now it appeared that
1060
they were to understand that civilians would be incarcerated in military prisons.
MR. HALDANEsaid the power was given to make rules for the good government of the prison. It was a general power of regulation in the interests of good order, and it was meant to apply to all places which were used as military prisons. It might be that civil prisoners were in portions of the building used as military prisons, and therefore it was desirable to extend the powers of making rules in regard to them.
LORD TURNOURsaid he still wished to know why that was the case. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that civilian prisoners might come under the military authorities. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would be divided upon.
MR. HALDANEsaid there was nothing in the clause which enabled a civilian to be imprisoned in a building which was used as a military prison. The provision was only put in to provide for the case in which part of the building was used for military prisoners while a part might be used for civilian prisoners. It was to enable rules to be made for the good government of the whole of the people in the prison and was for the protection of the whole of the people there.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he must repeat his question. He wanted to know what necessity there was for dealing with civilians in military prisons at all. The words of the section were "military or other prisoners." That covered the case of the naval prisoners clearly, but they now understood that it covered such civilians as might be in the neighbourhood transgressing the law and were put into the gaol. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee frankly what was the cause for these regulations. Had there been any rising or any undue amount of trespass during the last twelve months? Was there any reason for these provisions? The right hon. Gentleman had not, so far, given a single reason for them.
MR. HALDANEthought he could explain. A prison might be a civil prison, or it might be a part of a civil prison, or it might be a military prison. If it were part of a public civil prison it was very desirable to have certain rules which could be applied to any military prisoner who might at any time be in that prison. It was in the interest of the prisoners themselves that rules should be made. It was certainly desirable that the Governor-General of India or the Secretary of State should be able to make rules.
MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Governor-General was not able to make rules for his own prisoners. He certainly did not see why the military authority should make rules for and look after civil prisoners. Let the civilian authority look after civilian prisoners and the military authority after the military prisoners.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the case put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman had to his mind proved the case for the Amendment. When they turned to the Act itself they found that the power was to make rules for the regulation of military prisons and for the military prisoners therein. It was not proposed to alter the words "military prisoners," but to make it "military and other prisoners." What the Amendment did was to make it clear that the prison to which these rules should apply was for military and naval prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the military prison might be part of a civil prison, and in that case they desired to make provisions that should apply to the whole building. But if that were the case, and the Act showed that it could only apply to military and naval prisons, it was perfectly clear that it could not apply to the rest of the building. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be other prisoners there. If either by accident or by a wrong act there was a civilian prisoner in the military part of the prison it was suggested that these regulations should apply to him. He appealed to hon. Members to look at the matter intelligently and vote for the
1062
Amendment in order to make it quite clear that no civilian should be subjected to any punishment or any regulation whatever except those applicable to civilians.
Captain CRAIGsaid that from Section 133 it appeared to be quite possible that a building might be created a prison for temporary purposes, or that a part of a building might be taken, and also that part of a civil prison could be taken as a military prison. It followed that a civil prison might be partly a military prison, and if an unfortunate prisoner found himself inside the right hon. Gentleman's compound he would be subjected to all the pains and penalties of the Army Act, including flogging. If hon. Members carefully followed the Amendment they would see that its real object was to insure that civil prisoners should be immediately handed over to the civil authority and not detained under the regulations of this clause in a military prison. The right hon. Gentleman had been pressed very fairly by several speakers on the Unionist side to explain the more or less vague statement he made in the first instance. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to explain to the Committee why he proposed to impose this harsh treatment on civilians. It was quite true, as had been pointed out, that at times naval and military men might find themselves in military prisons, but no reason for this sweeping change had been given. If the clause as proposed by the Secretary for War were carried, it would lead possibly to far more dangerous practices than would appear from the more or less innocuous words by which it was altered. In the clause as it originally stood, the words "not exceeding twenty-five lashes," and so on, had been struck out, but still one could see what a serious clause it was. It might be that a civilian unwittingly trespassed on some military ground or fortification, and innocently became a prisoner. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman created a distinction between two rooms in a fortification. If the civil prisoner remained on the military side of the prison within the fortification his punishment was not to be more severe than it would be in a public prison under the Act of

1063
1879. If the prisoner was transferred to the other or civil side of the prison, they put upon the Army the cost of maintaining him in the first instance. He certainly thought his hon. friend had made out a strong case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make the small concession asked for. During the whole time the Bill had been under discussion the right hon. Gentleman had only made one small concession; he hoped, therefore, that in this instance he would give way, where it was not a question of broad principle but one of making the plan of the right hon. Gentleman workable.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: moved to report progress in order to call attention to the absence of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHAIRMAN:,being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
Question put, "That the word 'other' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 62.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Essex, R. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Alden, Percy

Fenwick, Charles

Maclean, David

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Barnard, E. B.

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Meehan, Patrick A.

Beauchamp, E.

Gooch, George Peabody

Menzies, Walter

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

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mond, A.

Bennett, E. N.

Gulland, John W.

Montagu, E. S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Branch, James

Hall, Frederick

Murphy, John

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brodie, H. C.

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brooke, Stopford

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tinperary Mid

Bryce, J. Annan

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Dowd, John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

O'Grady, J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Shee, James John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chance, Frederick William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Partington, Oswald

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pollard, Dr.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

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

Cooper, G. J.

Jowett, F. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Cory, Clifford John

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robsrt

Richardson, A.

Crean, Eugene

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robinson, S.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Lehmann, R. C.

Rose, Charles Day

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rowlands, J.

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lough, Thomas

Seely, Major J. B.

Elibank, Master of

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shackleton, David James

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

Toulmin, George

Whitehead, Rowland

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wadsworth, J.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walsh, Stephen

Wills, Arthur Walters

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

Walters, John Tudor

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wardle, George J.

Winfrey, R.

Summerbell, T.

Waring, Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease,

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, George (Norfolk)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Tomkinson, James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'd

Turnour, Viscount

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Hunt, Rowland

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

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Mr.Ashley and Captian Craig.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 63.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Henry, Charles S.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cory, Clifford John

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Alden, Percy

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crean, Eugene

Hogan, Michael

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crosfield, A. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol S.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Barnard, E. B.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Jowett, F. W.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kilbride, Denis

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

Elibank, Master of

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bennett, E. N.

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Bowerman, C. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Branch, James

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

Brodie, H. C.

Ffrench, Peter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Brooke, Stopford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann, R. C.

Bryce, J. Annan

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fullerton, Hugh

Levy, Maurice

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lough, Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Henry

Chance, Frederick William

Gooch, George Peabody

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Doald

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gulland, John W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clough, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Clynes, J. R.

Hall, Frederick

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cooper, G. J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Menzies, Walter

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

Tomkinson, James

Mond, A.

Richardson, A.

Toulmin, George

Montagu, E. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wadsworth, J.

Morse, L. L.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Murphy, John

Robinson, S.

Walters, John Tudor

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Rose, Charles Day

Wardle, George J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rowlands, J.

Waring, Walter

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton underLyne)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Dowd, John

Seely, Major J. B.

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

White, Luke (York, E.R)

O'Shee, James John

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Partington, Oswald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

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

Pollard, Dr.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Winfrey, R.

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

Summerbell, T.

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

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Haddock, George R.

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

Hamilton, Marquess of

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cirlile, E. Hildred

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edmd's

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox. G. R.

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

Mr. Watson Rutherford and Viscount Helmsley.

Courthope, G Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nield, Herbert

Clause 7:—
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 64.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness.

Alden, Percy

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Elibank, Master of

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Essex, R. W.

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, William

Everett, R. Lacey

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clynes, J. N.

Fenwick, Charles

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferens, T. R.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth

Ffrench, Peter

Beauchamp, E.

Collins, Sir W. J. (S. PancrasW.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

Cooper, G. J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bennett, E. N.

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Bowerman, C. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Gill, A. H.

Branch, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crean, Eugene

Glover, Thomas

Brodie, H. C.

Crosfield, A. H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gooch, George Peabody

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Gulland, John W.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Scott, A. H. (Ashtonunder Lyne)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Micking, Major G.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

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

Meehan, Patrick A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hayden, John Patrick

Menzies, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mond, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu,E. S.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Henry, Charles S.

Morrell, Philip

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.)

Morse, L. L.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Sutherland, J. L.

Hogan, Michael

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hudson, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Dowd, John

Tomkinson, James

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Grady, J.

Toulmin, George

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shee, James John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kearley, Hudson E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wadsworth, J.

Kilbride, Denis

Partington, Oswald

Walsh, Stephen

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Walters, John Tudor

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Wardle, George J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Waring, Walter

Lambert, George

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lamont, Norman

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whitehead, Rowland

Lewis, John Herbert

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

Richardson, A.

Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Winfrey, R.

Maclean, Donald

Robinson, S.

MacVeagh Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

McVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Rowlands, J.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Tumour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Williams, Col.D.R.(Dorset, H.)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E. R.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, W. G. (Petersfield)

Mr. Rowland Hunt and Sir William Bull.

Caig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nield, Herbert

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Clause 8:—
MR. ASHLEYmoved the omission of the word "meal" in order to substitute the word "meals." Although his Amendment might not appear very important, he believed that it was. In the schedule to the Army Act it was stated that where a prisoner was not provided with candles, vinegar, and other things, he was to be given "a hot meal." The Amendment was necessary
1070
to make the clause consistent with the Schedule.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 6, to leave out the word 'meal' and insert the words 'meals."—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'meal' stand part of the Question."
MR. HALDANEexplained that the Amendment was made in the Bill in

1071
order to carry out the purpose of the clause, and to enable them when they came to the schedule to distribute meals, a distinction being drawn between hot and cold meals.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the explanation was a very specious one, as the alteration was inconsistent with other words in the Act where a provision was found to the effect that a soldier should be served with breakfast, dinner, and supper on each day, such meals to consist of such and such quantities of food and drink. It was obvious that it ought to be such "meals," because it was not "meal" in the sense of ground oats. As breakfast, dinner, and supper were included it ought to be "meals." That seemed to him to be a matter of common-sense. It seemed, however, too much to expect common-sense in Parliamentary practice, especially at that time of the day, but he would urge the right hon. Gentlemen as a matter of English grammar to accept the suggestion which was made by this Amendment.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the meaning of the Amendment was perfectly clear and obvious, but he thought that it was clear that the Committee was not in a fit condition to go on discussing it. [Ministerial cries of "Speak for yourself!"] He thought hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would do very much better to go home, take a rest and then come back with a fresh mind so that they might be able to appreciate the clear and obvious argument which was now reasonably addressed to them, and make the Bill easy and intelligible, as it ought to be. That was the only object which the supporters of the Amendment had in view.
MR. HALDANEsaid the whole confusion had arisen from the hon. Member looking at the second paragraph of the section instead of at the third. If the hon. Member would turn to page 31 in the book which had been furnished to him he would see that that was so.
VISCOUNT VALENTIApointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was looking at the memorandum and not at the Bill. At present they were on Clause 8, which dealt with the question of "a hot meal," or a "meal."
MR. HALDANEinvited the noble Lord to look at the third paragraph.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid he was looking at the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred him to a printed memorandum, not to that paragraph in the Bill itself.
MR. COURTHOPEthought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. It was a small matter, but Clause 8 of the Bill cut out the word "a," when all he wished to cut out was the word "hot."
MR. HALDANEsaid that he agreed on that point.
VISCOUNT TURNOURasked whether in view of the little mistake which had just been exposed, it would not be better, having regard to the danger of a considerable mistake being made during one of the comic interludes of the hon. Member for South Down, to wait until the House was in a fresher and fitter condition to deal with the matter?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he was about to ask the Chairman's permission to move that he should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that. I would merely point out that if the word "a" is to be retained, the hon. Member will have to withdraw his Amendment, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War can move to substitute the words "a meal" for "a hot meal."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The word "a" inserted before "meal."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he did not quite understand the alteration made in the Bill by this clause. He could not see that there was any great difference between the old clause and the new one as amended, and he would be glad if the

1073
Secretary of State would point out exactly what the difference was. He should like to take this opportunity of called attention to the fact that during the whole of the debate they had not been honoured with the presence of either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, speaking on a point of order, said the Amendment which had been accepted was to insert the word "a." He understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out the word "hot."
*The CHAIRMAN: I have put the Question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the word "hot" was still in the Bill.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The word "hot" is taken out.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to be very respectful to the Chair in raising points of order, but he understood that the phrase in the original Act was "a hot meal," and it had been practically decided by the Committee that the words should be "a meal." Therefore all they wanted was to leave out the word "hot." The word "a" did not want to be added because it was already there.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is confusing two matters which are quite distinct. In line 6 the Committee have agreed to insert before the word "meal" the word "a."
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the House had yet had any explanation of what the Amendment really meant.
MR. HALDANEsaid the schedule must be read with the clause. If the schedule was looked at the whole thing became plain. It was impossible to understand it without. In future the soldier was to have three meals instead of one. It would not be clear until they reached the schedule.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR, on a point of order, asked whether an opportunity would be given, having regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss this clause with the schedule; otherwise it was admitted it was impossible to understand it.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the schedule in question was a schedule of the Army Act.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: No, the schedule referred to is the schedule of this Bill.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the schedule would come under discussion when it was reached. He did not quite understand what the noble Lord desired. The schedule could be discussed at the proper time and proper Amendments moved.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he desired to know whether an opportunity would be given to discuss this clause when the schedule was reached. The Secretary of State had said it was impossible to discuss the clause properly until the schedule was reached.
*THE CHAIRMANthought that in a case of this kind hon. Members would be in order when discussing the schedule to refer to this clause.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAasked, as they were now on the clause and not on the schedule, whether it would not be possible to discuss the schedule now.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he was sorry the Committee did not appear to understand what he had said. When the schedule came up for discussion the Committee could refer to this clause.
CAPTAIN CRAIGunderstood that when they came to the schedule it would be in order to couple with it Clause 8 which was now under discussion. He wished to ask whether now, while all the facts of Clause 8 were present in the mind of the Committee, they could now refer to the schedule so as to discuss it with Clause 8.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid it would not be out of order to refer to the alterations in

1075
the schedule if hon. Members desired to do so in the discussion on this clause, but he did not think the schedule ought to be discussed in detail at that point.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the original point of order arose from his asking the light hon. Gentleman to explain the clause. The Secretary of State said it was impossible to understand the clause without reading the schedule with it.
Then Mr. Chairman's ruling was that it was not in order to discuss the schedule with the clause. All he desired to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the explanation now or wait until the schedule was discussed.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 65.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

Alden, Percy

Fullerton, Hugh

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Gill, A. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Dowd, John

Barnard, E. B.

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Grady, J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Shee, James John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Parker, James (Halifax

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Partington, Oswald

Beauchamp, E.

Hall, Frederick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

Harvey, A. G.C. (Rochdale)

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Bennett, E. N.

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Black, Arthur W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pollard, Dr.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price,C.(Edinburgh, Central)

Branch, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henry, Charles S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Brodie, H. C.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Brooke, Stopford

Higham, John Sharp

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Bryce, J. Annan

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hogan, Michael

Richardson, A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burnyeat, W. S. D.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Robinson, S.

Garr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Rose, Charles Day

Chance, Frederick William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rowlands, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R.

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel,S. M. (Whitechapel)

Clarke, C. Goddard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Clough, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Major J. B.

Clynes, J. R.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shackleton, David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lambert, George

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cooper, G. J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Cowan, W. H.

Levy, Maurice

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

Summerbell, T.

Croffield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sutherland, J. E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Maclean, Donald

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Tomkinson, James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Toulmin, George

Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

M'Micking, Major G.

Walsh, Stephen

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walters, John Tudor

Essex, R. W.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wardle, George J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

Waring, Walter

Fenwick, Charles

Mond, A.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Ferens, T. R

Montagu, E. S.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ffrench, Peter

Morrell, Philip

White, George (Norfolk)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Williams, Llewelyn (C'rmarth'n

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Ashley, W. W.

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley GeorgeD.

Balcarres, Lord

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Turnour, Viscount

Bull, Sir William James

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

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

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

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Morpeth, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

Mr. Fell and Viscount Dalrymple.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 9:—
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he desired to call attention to the method of legislating which this clause illustrated. It repealed the whole of the clause which was in the Bill of last year, referring to the system of detention. That system the right hon. Gentleman at the time had eulogised as one which was likely to do a considerable amount of good so far as military prisons were concerned. It was, therefore, very important, before the clause was passed, that they should have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the reasons which had led him to repeal Section 135a, which was passed in only last year's Army Act. He imagined that the right hon. Gentleman, after his strong speech last year in support of that very section, must have equally strong reasons now for repealing it.
MR. HALDANEsaid Section 135a had not been in reality repealed, and it was still in the Bill in another form, because every bit of it had been woven into the schedules.
LORD BALCARRESobserved that the section was no longer in place because it was so carelessly drafted that after twelve months' experience the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he was bound to say that it was a most slipshod way of legislating. There was no explanation of the clause at all in the memorandum.
MR. HALDANE: Yes, it is explained.
MR. CAVEsaid the memorandum stated that—
"The Amendments made under Section 9 of the Bill are of a purely drafting and verbal character."
It was impossible to follow all the very elaborate changes in the schedule in the Bill itself. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that no changes proposed to be made in the schedule were of a really substantial character? As regarded Section 2 of Clause 9 it repealed Section 135a of the Army Act, and that was a very important matter, because it dealt with the detention of prisoners before trial. Could the right hon. Gentleman give shortly to the Committee the effect of the changes made by Section 9?
MR. HALDANEsaid that last year detention was substituted for imprisonment in the case of all minor offences, and in that way the soldier's record was made a better one. The object of Clause 9 was simply to make the detailed amendments in the Army Act necessary to give effect to last year's changes. They were all drafting Amendments which introduced nothing beyond what was proposed last year. He was not sure whether the hon. and learned Member

1079
was aware that under the Army Annual Act there was a clause which compelled the reprinting of the Army Annual Act from time to time together with the Amendments. That was a statutory obligation. It would be placed in the Library this year as soon as they got it into shape.
MR. CAVEsaid that on page 9 of the Bill there was a long Clause printed to be substituted for Section 63. Was there any substantial change in the new form of the Clause as compared with the old section.
MR. HALDANE: No. It is a change only in form, not in substance.
CAPTAIN CRAIGthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given, because it was exceedingly difficult to find out whether there had been any substantial change or not. He was inclined to think that as the Clause had become so well known in the ranks of the Army the right hon. Gentleman would be running a great risk of placing more upon the officers than they would be able to comprehend by making these constant changes in the Act. The Secretary of State for War came before the Committee, and in order to enable him to carry out his general scheme he asked them to reverse in every particular what he so vehemently urged them last year to adopt. Those who had any experience in dealing with the intricacies of the Army Act would appreciate what he had said. The new Clause was not so clearly expressed as the old one.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid there was no provision made for dealing with a person whom the commanding officer had sentenced to imprisonment. He thought that was a material omission. He suggested that words should be introduced in order to make that matter clear.
*MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONunderstood that the right hon. Gentleman intended to substitute "detention" for "imprisonment" and that the fact of a soldier having undergone "detention" would not be mentioned in his discharge. He thought
1080
it would be very hard that soldiers who had already been discharged should be placed at a disadvantage as compared with soldiers who would be discharged in future in consequence of this Amendment. There was great difficulty at present in obtaining employment in civil life for old soldiers, but this change would increase it, by destroying the confidence of the public in the accuracy and honesty of the discharge.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this arises on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid the Royal Commission on the employment of reserve soldiers and sailors reported that the present system of marking on soldiers' discharges the amount of imprisonment they had undergone, and the bad conduct marks they had had during their term of service, was not a good one. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the new system of "detention" which had had a year's trial had been approved by general officers in charge of districts and other soldiers holding high rank, and also whether the working of it had been beneficial to the discipline of the Army. Was the use of the word "detention" in the case of soldiers who competed for employment in civil life with other soldiers who had actually undergone terms of "imprisonment" likely to place the latter at a disadvantage?
MR. CARLILEappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Questions which had been addressed to him as to the effect of substituting the word "detention" for the word "imprisonment." Although a different word was employed, the punishment would, in many cases, be identical. He asked for an assurance that soldiers whose defaulter sheets bore the word "imprisonment" would not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with those whose defaulter sheets contained the word "detention." His object was to secure that the word "detention" instead of "imprisonment" should be inserted in the defaulter sheet of soldiers who had served with the colours and been discharged long ago.

1081
Otherwise, one man might have a defaulting sheet with the word "detained" in it and another man who had been guilty of the same offence might have his defaulter's sheet marked "imprisoned."
MR. HALDANEsaid that he would be glad to consider if anything could be done to place those soldiers whose defaulter sheets were marked with "imprisonment," in as favourable a position as regarded civil employment on leaving the service as those soldiers who, for the same military crime, had their defaulter's sheet marked under the new system with "detention."
MR. CARLILEwas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not give a further assurance than he had done.
Clause 10:—
VISCOUNT TURNOURmoved the omission of the proviso regarding punishments, which he thought was very badly worded. He was not in favour in any way of inflicting the punishment of flogging, and he was glad that it had been abolished in the Army. But he objected to the principle which allowed the Secretary of State to make rules as to the punishments which should be inflicted in the field; and he thought that the words "such field punishments shall be of personal restraint, or hard labour, but shall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb," were a most unjustifiable reflection on the disciplinary system of the Army. He had yet to learn that officers in the British Army ever gave a punishment which would cause injury to life or limb, and he hopod that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to repeal those words. The first question he had to ask was whether the Secretary of State for War should be permitted to interfere as to arrangements connected with active service at all, and whether they should not be left to the general officer commanding in the field. The second question, which was equally important, was whether the authority should be given to the Secretary of State. It seemed to him
1082
that that was a question for Parliament to settle and not for the Secretary of State. On the whole he would prefer that the matter were left to the discretion of the officers in the field, provided that proper rules were drawn up by the House. He had the greatest confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's sense of justice and his ability to devise rules for the Army or any other institution. Still there must be some safeguard, and he did not think the War Office should be the authority entrusted with the duty. The Bill left the question in slipshod fashion, where it had been for 200 years.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 16, to leave out sub-section (a)."—(Viscount Turnour.)
Question proposed, "That sub-section (a) stand part of the clause."
MR. ASHLEYdirected the attention of the Committee to the serious change made by this sub-section. The old sub-section was to the effect that where a soldier on active service was guilty of an aggravated offence of drunkenness or disgraceful conduct, or an offence punishable by death or imprisonment certain consequences should follow. But this sub-section said that where a soldier on active service was guilty of "any" offence it should be lawful for a court-martial to award for that offence such field punishment other than flogging, as might be directed by rules to be made from time to time by a Secretary of State, and that such field punishment should be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but should not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb. He honestly confessed that at that hour in the morning he was not in a condition to decide whether such a change was or was not desirable. On these grounds he moved that progress should be reported.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I am quite willing to accept, any Motion to report progress when we have settled this point, but I do not like to break into the middle of a discussion.
MR. HALDANEsaid the new subsection was framed to carry out the point which he explained on the Second

1083
Reading discussion. The object of the change was to enable men to be dealt with at the front instead of being sent back to the base. Under the old system a man when he committed an offence got sent back to the base, and hon. Members knew that soldiers committed offences in order to be sent back to the base and relieved from irksome duties. Under this provision they had taken power to define that the punishment should not involve injury to life or limb, and that the rules should be laid before Parliament. Rules could be made which were much less clumsy than an Act of Parliament, and they would, under the proposals of this Bill, come under the consideration of some of the best authorities and also of Parliament.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that no doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, these rules would be laid on the Table and would be amended from time to time. He wished to know, however, whether any discretion was to be given to the officer on the spot to vary the rules or whether they would always have to come before the House. It seemed to him rather a roundabout system that the rules should be laid on the Table, and then taken as adopted. Rules which would apply in Liberia in West Africa would be different from those which should apply in Egypt or the southern portion of Africa, and the proceeding would be an excessively cumbrous one, especially for the officer at the front. He wished to know what the term "field punishment" implied, and whether it was dangerous to life and limb.
MR. HALDANEsaid that in the old days punishments were inflicted which were dangerous to life and limb, but the present provisions would prevent that.
LORD BALCARRESthought the matter should be made quite clear. What were the punishments which required these safeguarding words. The words in the Bill did not make the matter very clear.
*MR. CAVEsaid the Committee would not be surprised that hon. Members took a greater interest in this clause, affecting as it did the punishment of the men, than in any other clause in the Bill. It pro-
1084
posed a very serious change in the law. To begin with, the power to give summary punishment was extended to all offences; it was not confined as it originally was to the three serious offences, and it applied not only to men at the front, but to men on active service, which was a very different thing. In the next place, the saving words at the end were omitted. Those words were that this summary punishment should not be inflicted where the officer was of opinion that the punishment of imprisonment could be resorted to. There were many circumstances under which men on active service could be punished by imprisonment. Why was that saving clause omitted from the Bill when it appeared in the existing Act? Having regard to all these things he had some difficulty in deciding on the clause at the moment, and he thought the Committee should see a draft of the rules and know what the field punishments were to be, and what crimes were to be punished by the process. In discussing Bills to be governed by rules, it was always a great assistance to the Committee to see the rules before the Bill was passed.
MR. LANE-FOXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had not created a new term in "field punishments." Was there any actual difference between "field punishments" and "summary-punishments"? If not he thought they should adhere the old terminology, rather than create a new term.
MR. HALDANEsaid there was very little difference between the two. There might not be a prison in which to confine a man, and he might be punished severely for minor offences. It was because the Government desired that there should be no abuse of power that they made the provision as to rules. Hon. Gentlemen would notice that the Act could not come into force before July, and he would be pleased to push on the framing of the rules so that they might be laid on the Table of the House before that time.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that Clause 10 was the most important clause in the whole Bill, and the points that had been touched upon were only those contained in sub-section 5. In the subsequent sub-sections there were other matters of still greater importance

1085
which they desired to discuss as soon a this Amendment was disposed of.
*MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONregarded with apprehension the question of giving power to punish in the way proposed. He thought it was unfortunate that the power should not have been left with the commander in the field. British generals were very careful to avoid inflicting punishment, unless there was grave necessity for it. The power of inflicting punishment in the field often obviated the necessity for it and a general officer would be more likely to send a man back to the base than inflict the extreme punishment in the field. He could not see the advantage of taking the matter out of the hands of the commander in the field.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid it seemed to him that the whole idea was to discourage the sending of the criminals back to the base. Supposing an officer was unfortunate enough to have a number of troublesome characters at the front, the best thing that could be done would be to send them to the base, because nobody could suggest that the maintainence of such characters at the front would improve the morale of the troops. Surely it would be possible, instead of putting the men in prison, to punish them by giving them fatigue or other duties whereby they would not be encouraged to stay at the base any longer than they could help. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman had consulted his military advisers on the point, but it seemed to him to be one of considerable magnitude, and he would be glad to receive an assurance that it was the opinion of the military advisers that this policy would be of advantage to the officers concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to what was the object of creating the new term "field punishment" instead of "summary punishment."
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was his intention to lay before the House some of the rules to which attention had been drawn. If they passed the Bill as it stood, or with the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had on the Paper, the present rules and regula-
1086
tions affecting punishments would still be in existence. Therefore, supposing that the Bill passed with all the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman had down, and that the War Office was not able to draw up a complete set of rules as regarded field punishment, they must take it that the "field punishment" was that referred to in the clause under discussion. He was sorry that an adjournment of the debate had not been allowed, so that they might have had time to study the matter, because when they came to consider the clause, and the serious punishments imposed, he did not think a single Member could appreciate how far it extended. It seemed to him that the clause was rather more severe than the existing rules. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to put in the rules some provision which would save the soldiers from the humiliation of being punished before natives. The right hon. Gentleman was now taking away the safeguards they had before and substituting a new clause which allowed to come under the clause crimes which before did not fall under it. They were very anxious to do full justice to the serious questions now under discussion, and he thought that would be a justification for granting the Motion to report progress which would be moved in a few minutes.
MAJOR COATESthought those hon. Members who had listened to the discussion would agree that it had been a serious one. They were discussing some very grave powers which it was proposed to give under the new clauses. He had not noticed the raising of any points which could be regarded as obstruction. Great powers in regard to punishments were being asked for to be exercised by officers serving in the field, and consequently they were justified in seeing that full justice was done to the private soldier. Surely a word ought to be said for that soldier himself, and the protection he ought to receive from Parliament. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had not retained the last three lines of the old clause, which read—
"And shall not be inflicted where the confirming officer is of opinion that imprisonment can with due regard to the public service be carried into execution."

1087
He would like to see those lines maintained because they constituted a valuable protection to the private soldier. When there was a court-martial in the field they might adminster quick justice in hot blood which might not be the kind of justice they would give to men in this country. He urged, therefore, that those words should be retained.
LORD R. CECILsaid the main effect of the alteration was to strike out the alternative of imprisonment. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not given to the Committee the reason for omitting that as an alternative. He saw the hon. and gallant; Member for Abercromby in his place, and he thought he would agree that it was very desirable that where they could imprison the soldier they should not be compelled to send him to the base.
MR. HALDANEsaid the very idea of field punishment was to put an end to skulking. There were people who skulked. If they were sentenced to imprisonment they were taken out of the ranks. It was in order to avoid that that the alteration had been made. The court-martial could still imprison if it thought proper. It was desired that field punishment should as far as possible be the rule and not the exception, so that there would be less temptation for the skulker to attempt to skulk.
MR. CARLILEsaid he could not agree with his noble friend in thinking that it was desirable to retain the present system of sending military criminals to the base to be dealt with. The proposal in the Bill was a distinct improvement. If a man who had been guilty of a military offence had to be sent to the base, he had not only to be taken out of the ranks himself, but he had to be accompanied to the base by another man. If the defaulter were retained at the front, he might have an opportunity of wiping the stain from his character.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would reply to the point which had been raised by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone.
MR. BYLESsaid the Secretary of State had power to make rules from time to time. He understood that the rules would be laid on the Table of the House so that they might know what they were. They should have an opportunity of judging whether the rules were humane or not.
MR. HALDANEsaid he hoped to be able to lay the rules on the Table at an early date.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CAVEmoved to report progress. The Committee had now come to the clause which he thought was the most important of all, and it ought to be discussed at a time when they were fully awake and able to deal with it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cave.)
MR. HALDANEsaid he would be very glad to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of himself, but the necessity of passing the Bill was pressing. There was the Report Stage to come, and the other House had to be considered; and with the Easter holidays so near, he felt that he must have the Committee Stage finished at that sitting. He had put down an Amendment to meet the question of flogging which had been raised on the Second Reading, and there were very few other points of substance remaining. He thought that if the Committee allowed him to get the Bill through at that sitting they would agree on reflection that they had done the right thing.
MR. FORSTERhoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. He could not understand why he insisted on pressing the Committee Stage of the Bill that day. The date on which the Bill must become law was April 30th, and there were three Parliamentary weeks after the Easter recess in which it could be discussed. There were a considerable number of clauses raising points of substance which could not be properly dealt with after

1089
such a prolonged sitting, and he thought that the right hon. Gentlemen should consent to the adjournment.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening told the Committee that he regretted that this Bill had been used more or less as a fighting ground by both Parties in the House. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wished, in the sessions to come, the Army Bill to go easily through the House, it would be by agreeing to the Motion proposed by his hon. friend. If the right hon. Gentleman was depending on the relays he was bringing down to the House, which he understood had been arranged for, he was making a grossly unfair use of his Parliamentary majority; and it would be the duty of the Opposition to continue sitting until the Bill had been thoroughly discussed to the end. Not a moment more time had been taken in these discussions than was absolutely necessary, and he was astonished that hon. Members opposite could not keep awake so as to discuss such serious questions as punishments in the Army. If the right hon. 'Gentleman was sincere in his desire to facilitate the passage of the Bill in the future he would consent to the Motion.
LORD R. CECILsaid he could not help hoping that the Government would consent to the Motion. It was not a matter of his own personal convenience at all; he had been detained from the House on urgent private business, but he was now altogether free for the day. ("An Hon. Member: No briefs to-day!] He thought that such proceedings were really a scandal to Parliament and an outrage on legislation. He did not believe that in years to come many people would credit the fact that the greatest example of Parliamentary Government in the world could conduct its business in the way it was doing. He would recall to the Committee what had actually occurred. There was under consideration a Bill of great importance dealing with the government of the Army for a whole year and containing a very drastic code. That, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding for which those on the Front Government Bench were responsible,
1090
had been brought on for discussion at two or three o'clock in the morning, when it was impossible for them to consider it owing to the disorderly interruption of Ministerialists and the raucous laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite. These indications and the appearance of the Secretary of State for War himself showed that the Committee was not really in a condition to discuss and deliberate upon the Bill. They desired to deal fairly with the Secretary of State for War, and they deeply regretted that owing to the extraordinary proceedings of some of his colleagues he had been compelled to discuss the Bill in that way, and at that time of day. [Ministerialcries of "Obstruction!"] It was not a question of obstruction at all. The Bill was brought on at two o'clock in the morning, and it was conceded that it could not be discussed in the time which was given to it. [An Hon. Member: Seven hours.] What sort of hours? Every impartial man knew that discussions carried on under the conditions which had prevailed that night were not discussions at all. The last time there was an all-night sitting the House was not released till the Prime Minister had had his breakfast. He wished to ask whether the Prime Minister could not be induced to have his breakfast now, and to come down to the House and release it from its extraordinary position. The Secretary for War said he did not mind; but they knew he did mind. The energies he could devote to the service of his country after an all-night sitting were not worth having. The Committee would be well advised to accept the Motion, which would commend itself to all hon. Members able to form an impartial and sober judgment. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. FIENNESinterposing, asked whether, as the noble Lord had not been present during the whole of the proceedings, he was a capable judge as to whether hon. Members were sober or not.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that was not a point of order. He did not take the word "sober," in the sense in which it was used by the noble Lord, as conveying any reproach.
LORD R. CECIL, who spoke amidst great interruption, in conclusion said he

1091
regarded the proceedings as a scandal and disgrace. [Ministerial cries of "Oh"!] Hon. Members opposite were not capable of discussing a serious subject seriously. [Cries of "Oh!"] He appealed very strongly to the Committee to accept the Motion, and he was sure that in their quieter moments they would agree with his description of the proceedings.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 37. (Division List, No. 66.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

Alden, Percy

Fullerton, Hugh

Murray, James

Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gill, A. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Glover, Thomas

Nuttall, Harry

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Barker, John

Gooch, George Peabody

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gulland, John W.

O'Dowd, John

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Grady, J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Shee, James John

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Hall, Frederick

Parker, James (Halifax

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

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Partington, Oswald

Bennett, E. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romford

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Black, Arthur W.

Harwood, George

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Bowerman, C. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Branch, James

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brigg, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pollard, Dr.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henry, Charles S.

Price,C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Brooke, Stopford

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Raphael, Herbert H.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hooper, A. G.

Rees, J. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Idris, T. H. W

Richardson, A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Clynes, J. R.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Kilbride, Denis

Robinson, S.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Roe, Sir Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rose, Charles Day

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rowlands, J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lambert, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Crean, Eugene

Lamont, Norman

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Crosfield, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Seely, Major J. B.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Levy, Maurice

Shackleton, David James

Davies, Timothy, (Fulham)

Lough, Thomas

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Elibank, Master of

M'Callum, John M.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Essex, R. W.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Summerbell, T.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Micking, Major G.

Sutherland, J. E.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fenwick, Chrles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Ferens, T. R.

Marnham, F. J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Ffrench, Peter

Morrell, Philip

Thomasson, Franklin

Tomkinson, James

Wardle, George J.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Toulmin, James

Waring, Walter

Wills, Arthur Walters

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Verney, F. W.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

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

Wadsworth, J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Winfrey, R.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Walsh, Stephen

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Walters, John Tudor

Whitehead, Rowland

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hamilton, Marquess of

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Cecil, Lord R, (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—.

Coates, E. Feltham (Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 205. (Division List, No. 67.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Hamilton, Marquess of

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury SEdm'd's

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bryce, J. Annan

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Alden, Percy

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Duckworth, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Barker, John

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Clarke, C. Goddard

Elibank, Master of

Barry, E. (Cork S.)

Clough, William

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Clynes, J. R.

Essex, R. W.

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

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew W.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Bennett, E. N.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Black, Arthur W.

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

Fenwick, Charles

Bowerman, C. W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Ferens, T. R.

Branch, James

Crean, Eugene

Ffrench, Peter

Brigg, John

Crosfield, A. H.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bright, J. A.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Fullerton, Hugh

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Seaverns, J. H.

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Seely, Major J. B.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shackleton, David James

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Gooch, George Peabody

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gulland, John W.

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, Philip

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hall, Frederick

Murphy, John

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Murray, James

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Donc'st'r

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harwood, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nuttall, Harry

Summerbell, T.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Sutherland, J. E.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

O'Grady, J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shee, James John

Thomasson, Franklin

Hobart, Sir Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Tomkinson, James

Hogan, Michael

Partington, Oswald

Toulmin, George

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Verney, F. W.

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk,Eye

Wadsworth, J.

Idris, T. H. W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pollard, Dr.

Walters, John Tudor

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jowett, F. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wardle, George J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waring, Walter

Kilbride, Denis

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rea, Walter Russell)Scarboro'

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

White, George (Norfolk)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lambert, George

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lamont, Norman

Richardson, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williamson, A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Br'df'd

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson. S

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Winfrey, R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rose, Charles Day

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton underline

MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the end of page 6, line 7, stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
Motion made and Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the end of pace 6, line 7, stand part of the Clause', be now put."
The Committee divided.—Ayes, 204; Noes, 37. (Division List, No. 68.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Brooke, Stopford

Alden, Percy

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Bennett, E. N.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Billson, Alfred

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Black, Arthur W.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Bowerman, C. W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barker, John

Branch, James

Clough, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Clynes, J. R.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bright, J. A.

Coats, Sit T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Br'df'rd

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Crean, Eugene

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robinson, S.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lambert, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamont, Norman

Rose, Charles Day

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne-

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lough, Thomas

Seaverns, J. H.

Duckworth, James

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seely, Major J. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shackleton, David James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. P. (Leicester)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

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

Edwards, Frank (Radnor

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sutherland, J. E.

Ffrench, Peter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marnham, F. J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Massie, J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Thomasson, Franklin

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

Tomkinson, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Murphy, John

Toulmin, George

Gill, A. H.

Murray, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Verney, F. W.

Glover, Thomas

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wadsworth, J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gulland, John W.

Nuttall, Harry

Walsh, Stephen

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Walters, John Tudor

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Dowd, John

Wardle, George J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Grady, J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

O'Shee, James John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Harwood, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, George (Norfolk)

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Whitehead, Rowland

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Higham, John Sharp

Pollard, Dr.

Williamson, A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hogan, Michael

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Hooper, A. G.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Winfrey, R.

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Idris, T. H. W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rees, J. D.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richardson, A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Ridsdale, E. A.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S.Edm's

Ashley, W. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

Balcarres, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bull, Sir William James

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Byles, William Pollard

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nield, Herbert

Carlile E. Hildred

Haddock, George R.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Turnour, Viscount

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Younger, George

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 211; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 69.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Marnham, F. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Massie, J.

Alden, Percy

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrell, Philip

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Murphy, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gill, A. H.

Murray, James

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Glover, Thomas

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Barker, John

Gooch, George Peabody

Nuttall, Harry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gulland, John W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Grady, J.

Benn, W.(T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Shee, James John

Bennett, E. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

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

Partington, Oswald

Billson, Alfred

Harwood, George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Black, Arthur W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suttolk, Eye)

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Brigg, John

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bright, J. A.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Pollard, Dr.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Higham, John Sharp

Price,C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l

Brooke, Stopford

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pullar, Sir Robert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hogan, Michael

Raphael, Herbert H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hooper, A. G.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hudson, Walter

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Byles, William Pollard

Idris, T. H. W.

Rees, J. D.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Richardson, A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clynes, J. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Coats, Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Sir G., Scott(Bradf'rd

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robinson, S.

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

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rose, Charles Day

Crean, Eugene

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Levy, Maurice

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Seaverns, J. H.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lough, Thomas

Seely, Major J. B.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lupton, Arnold

Shackleton, David James

Duckworth, James

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'gh

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Essex, E. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Ferens, T. R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sutherland, J. E.

Ffrench, Peter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Walters, John Tudor

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr-

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Williamson, A.

Thomasson, Franklin

Wardle, George J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Tomkinson, James

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

Toulmin, George

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, George (Norfolk)

Winfrey, R.

Verney, F. W.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wadsworth, J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitehead, Rowland

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Walsh, Stephen

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Hunt, Rowland

Wilson, A Stanley(York, E.R.)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Coates,E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 7, after the word "apply," to insert the words' 'Provided that nothing in this sub-section, or in any rules made there under, shall authorise flogging to be inflicted for any such offence.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
Question proposed "That these words be there inserted."
Lord R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had proposed this Amendment in order to carry out a pledge which he had given. The section as drafted originally seemed to give power to the general in the field to bring back punishment by flogging after it had been abolished. The words at the end of the sub-section were—
"And the limitations on the power of making rules as to the punishment of prisoners and soldiers undergoing detention and as to the severity of imprisonment and detention shall not apply."
This was a very important matter, and they ought to know exactly what the effect of the clause, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to amend it, would be. The Amendment would prevent punishment by flogging, but the general in the field, so long as he did not flog a man, could do anything he liked in the way of physical punishment. So long as he did not order flogging, he might range over all the tortures in history, so far as could be seen from the amended clause.
In point of fact the general in the field would be entitled to inflict any kind of corporal punishment other than flogging. He did not pretend to be violently opposed to corporal punishment in proper cases, but he thought it was right that the Committee should see exactly what they were going to do. He proposed as an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to leave out "flogging" and insert "corporal punishment." Although that appeared to him to be a proper Amendment, it would not render the clause complete, because it would still leave power to make the punishment more severe than was allowed in any public prison in England. It was quite clear that the rule might be used so as to inflict severe punishment on the concerned men, In his view there were certain forms of imprisonment which were much more severe than any form of personal chastisement.
MR. TOMKINSON: No.
LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. Member for Crewe did not agree with that; but let him ask what was the effect of long solitary confinement? That was a most wicked punishment, and was far more severe than any form of corporal punishment. It utterly

1103
destroyed a man's moral fibre, and in many instances his mind. So serious was that form of punishment, that stringent rules were laid down in England to prevent it. Of course, they might have imprisonment which involved starvation, or other things which would have a very severe effect on the prisoner. He did not share the great horror that some hon. Members had of corporal punishment, because there was a certain kind of criminal who was more afraid of it than any other form of punishment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the word "flogging," and insert the words "corporal punishment."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'flogging' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. HALDANEsaid the word "flogging" was the word used in other portions of the Act, and it represented what it meant. He really did not know what corporal punishment meant. Last year in the Army Act they abolished flogging by that name, and they desired to continue it to make it clear that the abolition extended to this Act.
MAJOR SEELYpointed out that the expression "corporal punishment" was used in Section 133 and other parts of the Army Act. It would, he thought, be better to substitute it for "flogging," otherwise it might seem as though corporal punishment might be inflicted by a general officer in the field.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Committee ought to pause before they lightly did away with flogging altogether in the Army. He was sure the Committee would agree with him that it was quite conceivable that, in the field, there might be such a state of affairs in the presence of the enemy in which the absence of the power to flog might necessitate the infliction of the penalty of death in the case of some offences, such as the maltreatment of women, which he was sorry to say had often taken place. At the same time he thought it was right
1104
that in time of peace a general should not have the right to inflict the punishment of flogging. If the Amendment was divided upon he would vote for it.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid there was a general feeling that the arrangement of punishments under the Bill needed thorough revision. There was no system or method about them, and punishments were inflicted which were in no sense desirable. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course a good many hon. Members who cried "Oh!" had not heard the matter discussed as, following the example of the Prime Minister, while the debate was going on they were sleeping in their beds. He earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he should not revise the whole of the Act.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the remarks of the noble Lord were not in order. He thought he ought to mention to the Committee that the real point they had to consider was whether they should amend the Amendment. He had not the least objection to the two things being discussed together—the Amendment to the Amendment and the Amendment itself—so long as it was understood that there was no hiatus between the settling of the two points. If he allowed hon. Members to discuss the Amendment to the Amendment as well as the Amendment there must be no after discussion of the Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it appeared to him that they had been discussing for thirty five minutes an entirely unnecessary point. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the word "flogging" indicated a kind of punishment which was to be abolished. It was suggested that corporal punishment might still be necessary, but he thought the general opinion was in favour of getting rid both of flogging and of corporal punishment. He should be willing to vote with the noble Lord who had suggested that the words "corporal punishment" should be substituted for "flogging," but it seemed to him that the whole difficulty might be got rid of in a moment if both Amendments were withdrawn and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill moved the adoption of the words "flogging or other corporal punishment."
MR. LUTTRELLsupported the suggestion.
MR. HALDANEwas prepared to accept the Amendment, but hoped the Committee would now give him the clause.
CAPTAIN CRAIGdesired some explanation as to the difference between "Field Punishment No. 1 "and "Field Punishment No. 2," and complained that it was impossible to recognise the two statements made by the Secretary of State for War, one at twenty minutes past four and the other at twenty minutes past ten.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he had great difficulty in understanding what the hon. Gentleman was driving at. He appeared to be calling attention to two inconsistent statements of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not see that what he had said had anything to do with the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILsaid that so far as he was concerned he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, but he desired to move an Amendment which applied to one of the other conditions with regard to the discretion of the general in the field.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'flogging' to insert the words, 'or other corporal punishment.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
Question proposed, "That these words be inserted."
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked, supposing a soldier proved refractory in the field where there was no fixed prison, would it be considered corporal punishment if he were tied up, or manacled and fettered? It seemed to him that the Amendment covered a very wide ground. If it was so held, it seemed to him that the officers commanding in the field would be practically prevented from resorting to the usual methods of detention. Supposing a soldier proved refractory and was arrested and placed
1106
in detention in a tent and he still proved refractory, would tying him up to a post or putting him in irons be construed as corporal punishment?
MR. HALDANEsaid the case put by the hon. Member did not come within the term corporal punishment. It was merely restraint.
LORD R. CECILsaid there was a very important limitation which it was proposed to leave out so far as the general commanding in the field was concerned. The subsection was in exceedingly wide terms. It applied to the whole of the country in which we might be operating against an enemy. If they took the recent war, this sub-section, had it been then in operation, would have applied to the whole of South Africa, Cape Colony, Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange River Colony. That would have been the country in which "operations against the enemy are being conducted." In that wide area the powers of the Secretary of State were to be exercised by the officer commanding-in-chief. Things had gone so far that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make rules to restrict the commanding officer. The Committee had agreed that he should be limited as to flogging and corporal punishment, but he would still have the power to inflict any term of imprisonment under any conditions, however severe and terrible they might be. If he thought it necessary to imprison a man hundreds of miles from the front he could make most severe regulations as to that imprisonment. He attached enormous importance to the prevention of solitary confinement or underfeeding; and unless they inserted some such words as he suggested, the commanding officer would have complete control of the incidence of punishment. He moved as an Amendment to add—
"Or any imprisonment or detention more severe than it is under the law in force for the time being in any prison in England subject to the Prison Act, 1877."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
"After the words last inserted, to insert the words, 'or any imprisonment or detention more severe than it is under the law in force for the time being in any public prison in England

1107
subject to The Prison Act, 1877.' "—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HALDANEsaid that nothing was further from the mind of the Government than that anything of a barbarous or oppressive nature should be imposed in the form of imprisonment. But the effect of the words which the noble Lord proposed to add was not specific; they were perfectly general, and made it almost impossible to draw up regulations. There were no prisons of the ordinary kind, but only a tent; and, as they had excluded flogging and corporal punish-
ment injurious to life and limb, he hoped that the Committee would leave the Department free to frame proper regulations, which would be laid on the Table of the House. The desire was that their hands should not be tied.
SIR G. PARKER: When those regulations are laid on the Table shall we have an opportunity of discussing them?
MR. HALDANE: Yes.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 215. (Division List No. 70.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Heaton, John Henniker

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

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

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

Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Hunt, Rowland

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Gilbert Parker.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Alden, Percy

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Elibank, Master of

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Essex, R. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Atherley-Jones, L.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Ferens, T. R.

Barker, John

Clough, William

Ffrench, Peter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clynes, J. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Bertram, Julius

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Glover, Thomas

Bethell, Sir J H(Essex, Romford

Crean, Eugene

Gooch, George Peabody

Billson, Alfred

Crombie, John William

Grant, Corrie

Black, Arthur W.

Crosfield, A. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gulland, John W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Brigg, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bright, J. A.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

Harwood, George

Brooke, Stopford

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duckworth, James

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Seely, Major J. B.

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shackleton, David James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Montagu, E. S.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford).

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

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

Hogan, Michael

Morrell, Philip

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morse, L. L.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hooper, A. G.

Murphy, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Murray, James

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Idris, T. H. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nuttall, Harry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Summerbell, T.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sutherland, J. E.

Jowett, F. W.

O'Dowd, John

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shee, James John

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Kelley, George D.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomasson, Franklin

Kilbride, Denis

Partington, Oswald

Toulmin, George

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walsh, Stephen

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walters, John Tudor

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Pollard, Dr.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Wardle, George J.

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Levy, Maurice

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Weir, James Galloway

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whitbread, Howard

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lupton, Arnold

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

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richardson, A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Williamson, A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Rowlands, J.

Winfrey, R.

M'Callum, John M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

M'Micking, Major G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Marnham, F. J.

Seaverns, J. H.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
MR. HALDANErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
LORD R. CECILasked whether it was in order for the Chairman to put the Motion as proposed.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsupported the protest on the ground that
under the Standing Orders what was called consequential closure—
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of consequential closure is not under consideration.
Question put, "That the Question 'That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided.—Ayes, 217; Noes 45. (Division List No. 71.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Alden, Percy

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Berridge, T.H. D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barker, John

Bertram, Julius

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

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Billson, Alfred

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Black, Arthur W.

Higham, John Sharp

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hogan, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bowerman, C. W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pollard, Dr.

Brigg, John

Hooper, A. G.

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

Bright, J. A.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Brooke, Stopford

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hyde, Clarendon

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Idris, T. H. W.

Rees, J. D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kekewich, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kelley, George D.

Rowlands, J.

Clough, William

Kilbride, Denis

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clynes, J. R.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton underLyne)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lambert, George

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Lamont, Norman

Seely, Major J. B.

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Shackleton, David James

Crean, Eugene

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crombie, John William

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Levy, Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lough, Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, James

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sutherland, J. E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Elibank, Master of

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Toulmin, George

Essex, R. W.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Micking, Major G.

Verney, F. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Marnham, F. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Fenwick, Charles

Massie, J.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ferens, T. R.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wardle, George J.

Ffrench, Peter

Montague, E. S.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morrell, Philip

Weir, James Galloway

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Whitbread, Howard

Fullerton, Hugh

Murphy, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Murray, James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncaster

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Glover, Thomas

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitehead, Rowland

Gooch, GeorgePeabody

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Nuttall, Harry

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Williamson, A.

Gulland, John W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Grady, J.

Winfrey, R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Malley, William

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Harwood, George

O'Shee, James John

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Partington, Oswald

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided.—Ayes, 222; Noes, 45. (Division List No. 72.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crombie, John William

Hooper, A. G.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Crosfield, A. H.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Agnew, George William

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hudson, Walter

Alden, Percy

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Allen A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Idris, T. H. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jardine, Sir J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duckworth, James

Jones, SirD. Brnymor (Swansea)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jowett, F. W.

Barker, John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kekewich, Sir George

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Elibank, Master of

Kelley, George D.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kilbride, Denis

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

Essex, R. W.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Berridge, T. H. D.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Bertram, Julius

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lambert, George

Billson, Alfred

Fenwick, Charles

Lamont, Norman

Black, Arthur W.

Ferens, T. R.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ffrench, Peter

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Bowerman, C. W.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Brigg, John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Levy, Maurice

Bright, J. A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Brooke, Stopford

Gibb, James(Harrow)

Lough, Thomas

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJhn

Lupton, Arnold

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J.R.(Leicester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Byles, William Pollard

Gulland, John W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harwood, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Glynes, J. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marnham, F. J.

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Montagu, E. S.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, J. J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hogan, Michael

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crean, Eugene

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morrell, Philip

Morse, L. L.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Toulmin, George

Murphy, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Murray, James

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Verney, F. W.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walsh, Stephen

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nuttall, Harry

Rowlands, J.

Wardle, George J.

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Waring, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Dowd, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

O'Grady, J.

Scott, A.H.(Ashton underLyne)

Weir, James Galloway

O'Malley, William

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitbread, Howard

O'Shee, James John

Seely, Major J. B.

White, George (Norfolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Partington, Oswald

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williamson, A.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Pollard, Dr.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Winfrey, R.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Raphael, Herbert H.

Summerbell, T.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sutherland, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A Pease.

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy

Richardson, A.

Thomasson, Franklin

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Nield, Herbert

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

SIR F. BANBURYmoved to report Progress. Private Bill Committees, he said, were about to sit, and hon. Members would be unable to do their duty to Private Bills and at the same time remain in the House. He understood also that the Prime Minister had an engagement at twelve o'clock. He begged leave to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
MR. HALDANEsaid that was the third or fourth time that the Motion had been made. He did not think there was any-
thing new under the circumstances which the hon. Baronet had put forward which made the slightest difference in the position. The Government did not propose to accept the Motion.
LORD BALCARRESappealed to the Secretary of State to accept the Motion. He (Lord Balcarres) had been in the House now for twenty hours, and he submitted that there was no Parliamentary hurry for concluding the Bill at that sitting. There were three Parliamentary weeks after the holidays during which the statutory requirements could be carried out, and no case had been made out for urgency. He submitted that it was not unreasonable that

1117
at that hour they should be allowed to adjourn.
MR. HUNTsaid the Government had taken three hours of the time of the House during which they might have been discussing the Army (Annual) Bill. At all events, they on that side of the House did not think that the Government had a right to take those hours. He belonged to a Private Bill Committee, and he was now due, or rather overdue, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to allow the adjournment of the debate, for hon. Members were only human.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid the Secretary of State for War had not replied to the argument as to the matter of urgency. Why not adjourn now, and put the continuation of the debate down for Monday? He appealed to the Prime Minister, not only on behalf of the Opposition, but on behalf of the officials, and also on behalf of the police, who had had a very hard night. They had been protecting the House of Commons, which had been practically throughout the night in a state of siege. The police had been engaged in conducting women to the police station, and he appealed to the Prime Minister even on behalf of the Secretary of State for War. He (Mr. Wilson) appealed also on behalf of the unfortunate Members of the House who had been sitting through the debate. If hon. Members on the Government side could cross the floor and look at their own faces, he felt that they would have sympathy with themselves.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS, although a Member of a Committee, thought it was their duty on the Opposition side to stay in the House and see the business through. The difficulty was not the making of the Unionist Members. He thought the Prime Minister ought to see that they should adjourn. Had the original arrangements been adhered to the Bill might have been carried through in an hour.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has thrown a light upon this matter. He says that this Bill should have occupied only an hour, and that there was no
1118
intention to occupy more than an hour's time. The hon. Member said so—and I believe the hon. Member who moved the Motion last night said an hour and a half. It is said by hon. Members opposite that the trouble was caused by our interposing the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It has always been the invariable practice of the House to take the different stages of such Bills de die in diem. I regarded Thursday as the necessary night when the Third Reading of the Bill would occur. According to the then arrangement the Committee stage should have been taken on Wednesday, but at the request of the Opposition, and in order to study the desires of hon. Members opposite, the whole matter was advanced, to the considerable loss of the Government. And, therefore, what had been provisionally fixed for Thursday was taken on Wednesday. Then we are told that the whole of this all-night sitting, which I have been fortunate enough to escape, according to the intrepretation now put upon it—which I would never have ventured to put upon it—is a pure piece of vindictiveness in consequence of some alleged misconduct, of the Government with regard to the Consolidated Fund Bill which has been explained. In consequence of that, all these Amendments of such thrilling importance and absolute necessity, have been put down, one after another, and we are asked now to adjourn. No, Sir; we have no intention of doing so. The hollowness of the whole thing is now exposed. In one way or another we will secure that the Report stage will be taken on Monday, and we are not prepared to interrupt our scheme of business and sacrifice days after Easter in order to gratify hon. Members opposite.
LORD ROBERT CECILasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in imputing vindictiveness to hon. Members.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the phrase was only a gloss on statements made by hon. Members and he did not, under the circumstances, consider it unparliamentary.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I might reply in what I believe to be a legal phrase familiar to the noble Lord—Habemus confitentes reos. If it had not

1119
been for the action taken in regard to the Consolidated Fund Bill this question might have been disposed of in an hour or an hour and a half. We are not disposed to accede to this request.
MR. FORSTERsaid he had been present almost continually in the House during the time that the Army Annual Bill had been under discussion. They had learned from the Prime Minister that he would not treat the Opposition in a reasonable manner. They had also learned from him that he
would have no regard for hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman was ready to fight, so were they.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 73).

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Jowett, F. W.

Alden, Percy

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Duckworth, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Kelley, George D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kilbride, Denis

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Atherley-Jones, L.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Elibank, Master of

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lambert, George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Barker, John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Ffrench, Peter

Lough, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lupton, Arnold

Bertram, Julius

Findlay, Alexander

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Billson, Alfred

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Black, Arthur W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Ginnell, L.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Bright, J. A.

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Grant, Corrie

M'Crae, George

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Micking, Major G.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Massie, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hayden, John Patrick

Montagu, E. S.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mooney, J. J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Clough, William

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

Morrell, Philip

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morse, L. L.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hogan, Michael

Murray, James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hooper, A. G.

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncaster

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Crean, Eugene

Hudson, Walter

Nuttall, Harry

Crombie, John William

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Crosfield, A. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Dowd, John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

O'Malley, William

O'Shee, James John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Verney, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Partington, Oswald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walsh, Stephen

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne)

Walters, John Tudor

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seaverns, J. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wardle, George J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shackleton, David James

Waring, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Pollard, Dr.

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

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Pullar, Sir Robert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitbread, Howard

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, George (Norfolk)

Remond, John E. (Waterford)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Rees, J. D.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Richardson, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Winfrey, R.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Robinson, S.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Rose, Charles Day

Thomasson, Franklin

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rowlands, J.

Tomkinson, James

Runciman, Walter

Toulmin, George

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Hon Guy (Winchester)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Heaton, John Henniker

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Hervey, F. W. F(Bury S. Edm'd's

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 74).

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fullerton, Hugh

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ginnell, L.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Alden, Percy

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nuttall, Harry

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Allen, Charles P. (Stround)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Dowd, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Grady, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gulland, John W.

O'Malley, William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Shee, James John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Barker, John

Harcourt, Right Hon Lewis

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Partington, Oswald

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Harwood, George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hogan, Michael

Pollard, Dr.

Bertram, Julius

Hooper, A. G.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'd)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Billson, Alfred

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Black, Arthur W.

Hudson, Walter

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Idris, T. H. W.

Rees, J. D.

Bowerman, C. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Brigg, John

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Bright, J. A.

Jenkins, J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Ridsdale, E. A.

Brooke, Stopford

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Robinson, S.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Kelley, George D.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Kilbride, Denis

Rose, Charles Day

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rowlands, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

Runciman, Walter

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clynes, J. R.

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton underLyne)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seaverns, J. H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Seely, Major J. B.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

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

Crombie, John William

Lupton, Arnold

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dobson, Thomas W.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, James

M'Callum, John M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Crae, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomasson, Franklin

Essex, R. W.

Marnham, F. J.

Tomkinson, James

Esslemont, George Birnie

Massie, J.

Toulmin, George

Everett, R. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A.

Verney, F. W.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wadsworth, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, E. S.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Ferens, T. R.

Mooney, J. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Ffrench, Peter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walters, John Tudor

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morrell, Philip

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Findlay. Alexander

Morse, L. L.

Wardle, George J.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Waring, Walter

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murray, James

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

1124

1125

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Whitehead, Rowland

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Weir, James Galloway

Whiteley, John Henry(Halifax)

Whitbread, Howard

Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rth'n)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Winfrey, R.

MR. ASHLEYmoved a new clause defining the punishment for repeated desertion, fraudulent enlistment, and absence without leave, and by way of substitution for the old clause in the Army Act, which he contended was unjust. It laid down the principle that a man tried for fraudulent enlistment and desertion by Court-martial, and convicted of both of those offences, should be liable to a higher scale of punishment than if convicted of only one offence. If he was convicted of two offences, he would be liable to penal servitude, but if he was convicted of only one offence he would be liable to imprisonment. He was sure that the Committee would agree that, if a man committed an offence twice, it was right his punishment should be increased; but it was extremely unusual, in English Civil Law, that a man, because he was convicted of two offences, should be liable to penal servitude, whereas, if he was convicted of only one offence, he would be liable only to imprisonment.
New Clause (Amendment of Army Act as to Desertion, Fraudulent Enlistment, and Absence without Leave)—(Mr. Ashley)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be road a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid it was impossible for him to accept the proposed new clause. A person enlisting fraudulently once might do so under some impulse, but the person who had deserted from one regiment, and fraudulently enlisted in another, was a very different type of man. Under the section as it stood, a man came under the second category, and was liable to penal servitude, who repeatedly fraudulently enlisted. Those cases were very few, but penal servitude; had been inflicted. The new clause sought to take away the power of imposing that punishment, and he could not accept it.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman's argument was no doubt extremely good, provided that the punishment was limited to a certain number of years of imprisonment. He quite agreed that a man who committed an offence knowingly the second time should have a heavier punishment than the man who committed it for the first time, That principle applied to every offence under the statute. They all agreed that fraudulent enlistment was a serious offence, that it acted very detrimentally to the Army, and was one for which there should undoubtedly be a fresh and increasing punishment to act as a deterrent in case of repeated offences; but the punishment provided in the Act was of a different category altogether. They were not content to say that the punishment should be increased, but they said that a different kind of penalty should be imposed. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell them of any offence in law for which a different penalty was inflicted on a second conviction? He believed there was no statute which said that, provided a man had been convicted before, he should be liable to a punishment different from that to which he was liable on first conviction. Under those circumstances, he thought they ought to pause and consider whether they should not accept the new clause. The Committee, he thought, were indebted to his hon. friend for pointing out what he believed to be an absolute injustice. None of them was desirous of giving any facility for desertion or fraudulent enlistment, and they all regarded the Army as a serious profession. He hoped those Members who had legal experience would show them if they were wrong in supporting the new clause, because they on that side of the House were in an exceedingly reasonable frame of mind, and, if it could be shown that, as laymen, they were making a mistake, they would no doubt reconsider the matter. He, however, contended that they had not made a mistake, but that they were right in supporting the Amendment. If his hon. friend went to a division, he would support him.
MR. CAVEsaid they were not dealing with the case of a man who had been already convicted, nor with the case of a man who had been convicted more than once of fraudulent enlistment, but with the case of a man who had fraudulently enlisted and then was not found out until he was brought up as a deserter. He might then be tried, at one and the same time, for fraudulent enlistment and desertion. It was the first time he was charged, but he was charged with two offences at once. In an ordinary criminal Court, the man would be dealt with as though he was a first offender in each case; but under the section which his hon. friend sought to modify, if he was convicted for the first offence, he was liable, when charged with the second offence, to be treated as an old offender. That was neither right nor in accordance with the rules of our criminal law. He had known hundreds of men brought up at the same Court on two charges, and they had never been treated on the second charge as old offenders. It was never done, and he doubted whether it could be done. It was under this Act only, so far as he knew, that a man tried with a double offence could be treated as an old offender and sent to penal servitude for what was really only one offence. He did not think that that was either fair or just. It was certainly not in accordance with the rules of English civil law, and if the hon. Gentleman would only look into the matter and see what it meant, he was sure he would agree with them. The Amendment was to leave out of Section 12 certain word sat the end, which provided it should be lawful, on conviction of a person of two or more offences, to award him the higher punishment provided for a second offence, as though he had been convicted by a previous Court-martial of one of such offences. He supported the proposed new clause.
SIR GILBERT PARKERheartily supported the proposed new clause. It was generally held that the object of punishment was to prevent a man from committing the offence again. If the man did repeat the offence after punishment, then the Court, as a rule, took a more severe view of the case, and properly so. The man had had time to think of the offence he had committed, and the effect of his conduct had been
1128
brought home to him. If he then committed the crime again, a severer punishment ought to be administered. But in this case the man was not given any opportunity for repentance. He had enlisted fraudulently, but he had not had the real significance of his crime brought home to him. Then. having fraudulently enlisted, he deserted. That was a serious thing, but the man would not have fully realised the heinousness of his offence in the way he would have done if he had already been imprisoned for it. He, therefore, agreed with his hon. friend who had raised the question, that the case was entirely different from that of a man who had committed an offence, been punished, had had time to consider it, and had then deliberately repeated the offence. The right hon. Gentleman must see that he had put the soldier on an entirely different basis from any other man who committed a misdemeanour or crime. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause, which would, he honestly believed, obviate unfair treatment of a man who had had no opportunity whatever of repenting of his offence.
MR. LANE-FOXwas sorry to have to disagree from his hon. friend, but on this occasion he could not support him He entirely agreed with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not a question between a first and second offence, but between one offence and one very much greater. Everybody knew that a man who habitually deserted was a far greater nuisance, and committed a far more serious crime, than could be fairly gauged by the question between one and two. He thought, when hon. Members considered the matter, they would see that there was no hardship. The Act said that a man might be sent to penal servitude; but everybody knew that the maximum penalty was seldom imposed, and surely it was desirable that there should be a severe penalty for the habitual deserter, who, after all, was not easy to discover, was a constant source of trouble, and might also be a source of danger. He could not, therefore, support the now clause.
LORD R. CECILsaid the case put by the hon. Member for Blackpool was that the two offences were really

1129
one. It was not only that the man had not been warned, but the Court which had tried and found him guilty of one offence was naturally prone to think him guilty of the second offence, and the man did not get an impartial trial. The conviction of two offences by the same Court at the same time was not the same thing as the conviction of a man by different Courts for different offences.
MR. COURTHOPEthought that if his hon. friends would look at the clause again they would see that their objections to the alterations fell to the ground. The proposed alteration in Clause 12, as he read it, was not
to prevent an increased penalty being given for an offence committed a second time, but was one to prevent two offences, brought up at one and the same time and tried together, being treated as first and second offences.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 75.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmd's

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Hunt, Rowland

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fullerton, Hugh

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ginnell, L.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Alden, Percy

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nuttall, Harry

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Allen, Charles P. (Stround)

Grant, Corrie

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

O'Dowd, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Grady, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gulland, John W.

O'Malley, William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Shee, James John

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Barker, John

Harcourt, Right Hon Lewis

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Partington, Oswald

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Harwood, George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hogan, Michael

Pollard, Dr.

Bertram, Julius

Hooper, A. G.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'd)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Billson, Alfred

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Black, Arthur W.

Hudson, Walter

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Idris, T. H. W.

Rees, J. D.

Bowerman, C. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Brigg, John

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Bright, J. A.

Jenkins, J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Ridsdale, E. A.

Brooke, Stopford

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Robinson, S.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Kelley, George D.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Kilbride, Denis

Rose, Charles Day

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rowlands, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

Runciman, Walter

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Clynes, J. R.

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton underLyne)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Seaverns, J. H.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Seely, Major J. B.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crean, Eugene

Lough, Thomas

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

Crombie, John William

Lupton, Arnold

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crosfield, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dobson, Thomas W.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, James

M'Callum, John M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

M'Crae, George

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Maddison, Frederick

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Elibank, Master of

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thomasson, Franklin

Essex, R. W.

Marnham, F. J.

Tomkinson, James

Esslemont, George Birnie

Massie, J.

Toulmin, George

Everett, R. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A.

Verney, F. W.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wadsworth, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, E. S.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Ferens, T. R.

Mooney, J. J.

Walsh, Stephen

Ffrench, Peter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walters, John Tudor

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morrell, Philip

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Findlay. Alexander

Morse, L. L.

Wardle, George J.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murphy, John

Waring, Walter

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murray, James

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

1124

1125

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Whitehead, Rowland

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Weir, James Galloway

Whiteley, John Henry(Halifax)

Whitbread, Howard

Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rth'n)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Winfrey, R.

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Alden, Percy

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kekewich, Sir George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kelley, George D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Edwards, Clemeat (Denbigh)

Kilbride, Denis

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Elibank, Master of

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Essex, R. W.

Lambert, George

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamont, Norman

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Barker, John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Barry, E. (Cork, S,)

Ferens, T. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lough, Thomas

Benn, Sir J. William(Dev'np'rt

Findlay, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

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

Fuller, John Michael F.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bertram, Julius

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

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

Ginnell, L.

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maclean, Donald

Billson, Alfred

Glover, Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Grant, Corrie

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Black, Arthur W,

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Brigg, John

Gulland, John W.

M'Callum, John M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Crae, George

Brooke, Stopford

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Micking, Major G.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Byles, William Pollard

Harwood, George

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hayden, John Patrick

Marnham, F. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Massie, J.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meehan, Patrick, A.

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Coates, SiR T.Glen-(Renfrew,W.

Hogan, Michael

Montagu, E. S.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hooper, A. G.

Mooney, J. J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Hudson, Walter

Morrell, Philip

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Idris, T. H. W.

Morse, L. L.

Crean, Eugene

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Murphy, John

Crombie, John William

Jardine, Sir J.

Murray, James

Crosfield, A. H.

Jenkins, J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

Nuttall, Harry

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

Jowett, F. W.

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rose, Charles Day

Toulmin, George

O'Dowd, John

Rowlands, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Grady, J.

Runciman, Walter

Verney, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wadsworth, J.

O'Shee, James John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walsh, Stephen

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Walters, John Tudor

Partington, Oswald

Seaverns, J. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wardle, George J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shackleton, David James

Waring, Walter

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Pickersgill, Edward Here

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Pollard, Dr.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitbread, Howard

Price, C.E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, George (Norfolk)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitehead Rowland

Rees, J. D.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax

Rendall, Athelstan

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Richardson, A.

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Sutherland, J. E.

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Winfrey, R.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Robertson, Sir G.Scott (Br'df'd

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Robinson, S.

Thomasson, Franklin

Roe, Sir Thomas

Torrance, Sir A. M.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Baring, Hon. Guy Winchester

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Heaton, John Henniker

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

Cave, George

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. E'm'ds

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Younger, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

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

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 240. (Division List No. 76.)

AYES.

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield

Carlile, E. Hildred

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cave, George

Haddock, George R.

Randles, Sir John Seurrah

Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Valentia, Viscount

Younger, George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Starkey, John R.

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

Mr. Ashley and Mr. Claude Hay.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Turnour, Viscount

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

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Alden, Percy

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Allen, A. Acland (Chistchurch)

Ffreneh, Peter

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Findlay, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fullerton, Hugh

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marnham, F. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ginnell, L.

Massie, J.

Barker, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Meehan, Patrick A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Grant, Corrie

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Montagu, E. S.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mooney, J. J.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Benn, W.(T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morrell, Philip

Bertram, Julius

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Morse, L. L.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Murphy, John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hart-Davies, T.

Murray, James

Billson, Alfred

Harwood, George

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Boulton, A. C. F.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Brigg, John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brooke, Stopford

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hooper, A. G.

O'Grady, J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Malley, William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hudson, Walter

O'Shee, James John

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Idris, T. H. W.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Byles, William Pollard

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Parker, James (Halifax)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Partington, Oswald

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Clough, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Clynes, J. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pollard, Dr.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kekewich, Sir George

Price,C. (Edinburgh, Central)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kelley, George D.

Pullar, Sir Robert

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

Kilbride, Denis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Crean, Eugene

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rees, J. D.

Cremer, William Randal

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rendall, Athelstan

Crombie, John William

Lambert, George

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

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Richardson, A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Ridsdale, E. A.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lough, Thomas

Robinson, S.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Lupton, Arnold

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rose, Charles Day

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rowlands, J.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

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

Runciman, Walter

Elibank, Master of

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Essex, R. W.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Seaverns, J. H.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Seely, Major J. B.

1134

1135

Shackleton, David James

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Whitbread, Howard

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whitehead, Rowland

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Toulmin, George

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Verney, F. W.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wadsworth, J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walsh, Stephen

Winfrey, R.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walters, John Tudor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Summerbell, T.

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sutherland, J. E.

Waring, Walter

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Weir, James Galloway

MR. ASHLEYsaid he wished to move another new clause with reference to fraudulent enlistment. He proposed to omit in paragraph 8, Sub-section 1, Section 13, the words "obtain a regular discharge there from or otherwise." He moved this new clause for two reasons. In the clause as it stood there were, in his opinion, words which were redundant, and which therefore ought not to be retained. In his new clause it was said that a man must fulfil the conditions to enable him to enlist; and therefore he saw no necessity why it should be said that he must "have obtained a regular discharge from the Regular Forces." He must have done so to fulfil the conditions. As the clause stood it would be practically impossible for an officer who belonged to the Regular Force to join a local force such as was raised in 1897 during the South African War without coming under the dire pains and penalties of imprisonment, and, if he did it twice, of penal servitude.
New Clause (Amendment of Army Act as to Fraudulent Enlistment)—(Mr. Ashley)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid he could not gather what was the purpose of the hon. Member in moving the new clause. The words he proposed to strike out were the very essence of the clause. If a man enlisted in two corps he disturbed the situation in a way which introduced great confusion, and consequently it had been made a specific offence to enlist in another corps without having first
obtained a regular discharge from the one he joined first. The Government could not, therefore, consent to having the clause cut down.
VISCOUNT TURNOURthought the clause, as it stood, imposed rather hard restrictions upon officers of the Auxiliary Forces. He called particular attention to the words "or any force raised in India or the Colonies," and asked what was the definition of the word "Force" in that connection. He was in the Yeomanry. Supposing he went into the Colonies and joined a rifle club, the members of which drilled together, would he be guilty of having joined a force raised in the Colony without first obtaining his discharge from the Yeomanry?
MR. HALDANE: Of course it must be a regular corps.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had told them he could not accept the new clause because, if a man enlisted in two different corps, it caused confusion and no doubt showed the nominal strength greater than the actual strength. That seemed to be a fallacious argument. Supposing they adopted the new clause; what would happen? They would be putting the Auxiliary Forces on the same footing; as the Regular Forces. Was not that what the right hon. Gentleman was; trying to do in his scheme? Was he not trying to make the Army one homogeneous whole? He thought, if the right hon. Gentleman further considered the matter, he would see that his hon. friend was right. He would put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. The Militia was going to be abolished. What was

1137
the use, therefore, of making a special provision for a corps which was not going to exist?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I do not consider that kind of argument is in order. We have to take things as they are.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he understood from the Chairman's ruling that they could not go into the whole question of what would happen under the now scheme, but his argument was that, supposing the new scheme came into
existence, there was no reason why the Militia and the Yeomanry should be put in a different position from that of the Regular Army.
MR. HALDANErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 77.)

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jackson, R. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jardine, Sir J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jenkins, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jowett, F. W.

Barker, John

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Elibank, Master of

Kekewich, Sir George

Barnard, E. B.

Essex, R. W.

Kelley, George D.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kilbride, Denis

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Beale, W. P.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't

Ferens, T. R.

Lambert, George

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lamont, Norman

Bertram, Julius

Ffrench, Peter

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

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

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accr'gton)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Findlay, Alexander

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Billson, Alfred

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fullerton, Hugh

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Black, Arthur W.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lough, Thomas

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ginnell, L.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Maclean, Donald

Brooke, Stopford

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Macnarmara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gulland, John W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Crae, George

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Micking, Major G.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hart-Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harwood, George

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Marnham, F. J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Massie, J.

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

Meehan, Patrick A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Crean, Eugene

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mooney, J. J.

Crooks, William

Hogan, Michael

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hooper, A. G.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morrell, Philip

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Morse, L. L.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Murphy, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Idris, T. H. W.

Murray, James

Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Norman, Sir Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robinson, S.

Thorne, William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roe, Sir Thomas

Torranc, Sir A. M.

Nuttall, Harry

Rose, Charles Day

Toulmin, George

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Rowlands, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Runciman, Walter

Verney, F. W.

O'Dowd, John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wadsworth, J.

O'Grady, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

O'Malley, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walsh, Stephen

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walters, John Tudor

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seaverns, J. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Partington, Oswald

Seely, Major J. B.

Wardle, George J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Shackleton, David James

Waring, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Weir, James Galloway

Pirie, Duncan V.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitbread, Howard

Pollard, Dr.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitehead, Rowland

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rth'n

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Rees, J. D.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

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

Summerbell, T.

Winfrey, R.

Richardson, A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rickett, J. Compton

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

Forster, Henry William

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W

Hunt, Rowland

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Craik, Sir Henry

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 252. (Division List No. 78)

AYES.

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

Bowles, G. Stewart

Corbett, T. L. Down, North)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Courthope, G. Loyd

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Cave, George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Fell, Arthur

Banner, John S. Harmood

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Cecil, Lord R (Marylebone, E.)

Forster, Henry William

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West

Haddock, George R.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Turnour, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Valentia, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Houston, Robert Paterson

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

TEELLRS FOR THE AYES—

Hunt, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Lane-Fox, G. R

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Lockwood, Rt. H0n. Lt.-Col. A. R

Starkey, John R.

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

Talbot, Lord (E. Chichester)

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Kelley, George D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kilbride, Denis

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Edwards, Clement (Dsenbigh)

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Elibank, Master of

Lambert, George

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Barker, John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Barnard, E. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lough, Thomas

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Beale, W. P.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bertram, Julius

Fullerton, Hugh

Maclean, Donald

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ginnell, L.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Billson, Alfred

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Glover, Thomas

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Black, Arthur W.

Grant, Corrie

M'Callum, John M.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Crae, George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Brigg, John

Gulland, John W.

M'Micking, Major G,

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mallet, Charles E.

Brooke, Stopford

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Manfield, Harry-(Northants)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie, J.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Byles, William Pollard

Hart-Davies, T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harwood, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montague, E. S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morrell, Philip

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

Higham, Sharp John

Morse, L. L.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murphy, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hogan, Michael

Murray, James

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

Hooper, A. G.

Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norman, Sir Henry

Crean, Eugene

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cremer, William Randal

Hudson, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Crooks, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Nuttall, Harry

Dalziel, James Henry

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipper'ryMid)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Dowd, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras,

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Partington, Oswald

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Duckworth, James

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

1142

1143

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wadsworth, J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seely, Major J. B.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shackleton, David James

Walsh, Stephen

Pollard, Dr.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walters, John Tudor

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

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wardle, George J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waring, Walter

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Redmond, William (Clark)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Rees, J. D.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Weir, James Galloway

Rendall, Athelstan

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitbread, Howard

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Richardson, A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sstraus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitehead, Rowland

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Sutherland, J. E.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradf'rd

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Winfrey, R.

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rowlands, J.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Runciman, Walter

Thorne, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—.

Rutherford, V. H.(Brentford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Verney, F. W.

MR. ASHLEYmoved as a new clause to insert in Clause 97 of the Army Act after the word "attestation" the words "in a non-European corps." He pointed out that under the Army Act a master in the United Kingdom could regain the services of an apprentice if he enlisted in His Majesty's Regular Army before the conclusion of his term of indenture. The object of his new clause was to ensure that a master in England should not have preferential treatment over a master in one of our Colonies. He was sure that hon. Members opposite, who always wished to be fair to everybody and did not often succeed, would see that if his clause were accepted by the Committee it would enable a master in the Colonies to recover the services of an apprentice if he absconded and enlisted in a native regiment, just as a master at home could recover his apprentice's services. He could not conceive anybody objecting to pass such a clause. Why should a master who had an indentured labourer working for him lose the services of that labourer, and not be able to get him back, if he absconded and enlisted in one of the native corps which were scattered all over the Empire—in Hong Kong, Singapore, the West Indies, and other places?
New Clause (Amendment of Section 97, Army Act, as to indentured
labourers)—(Mr. Ashley)—brought up' and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEfound it difficult to discover what the purpose of the hon. Member was in moving this alteration in the law. There was no distinction in principle between Clauses 96 and 97. If a young man below twenty-one who was an apprentice, enlisted in the Army, he could be reclaimed under certain conditions. He saw no need for differentiation between a European and a non-European corps.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought the point raised by the Member for Blackpool was a very valuable one. To make the provisions in Clauses 96 and 97 clearer, he would suggest the insertion of the words "whether in a European or non-European corps."
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)pointed out that the question before the Committee was that the clause be read a second time. When it was read a second time would be the time to amend it.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Secretary for War did not evidently understand his own Act, because he had said

1145
that the result of the alteration which his hon. friend had proposed would be to put the indentured labourer in a different position from the apprentice. But it would do nothing of the kind. What it really meant was that the provisions of the Act not having been made sufficiently elastic to cover the case of forces regular and irregular which were serving in the Colonies, non-European forces serving in the Colonies could not come under it. It was very clear that something of the sort must be inserted in the clause, or else they would be in the position that an indentured labourer who left his employer and went into the native force at Hong Kong or in some parts of India—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The simple question is whether this clause shall be limited to enlistment in a non-European corps or not.
SIR F. BANBURYthought it an extremely good argument in favour of
the proposed clause that the Army Act was not clear at present. When the clause was passed it could be amended so as to make the matter perfectly clear.
MR. CLAUDE HAYconsidered that the discussion had made it quite clear that the new clause moved by his hon. friend was one of considerable importance. It was essential that the Committee should know exactly where it was in limiting or extending the conditions under which indentured labourers might be either taken for military purposes as in this case—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These general observations are not relevant to the question before the Committee. The question is that this clause be read a second time.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57, Noes, 261. (Division List No. 79.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir AlexF.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive.

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Younger, George

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mason, James F.(Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Mr. Ashley and Sir Gilbert Parker.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Craik, Sir Henry

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barnard, E. B.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Agnew, George William

Barnes, G. N.

Billson, Alfred

Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Black, Arthur W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beale, W. P.

Bottomley, Horatio

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Bell, Richard

Boulton, A. C. F.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Brigg, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Brooke, Stopford

Barker, John

Bertram, Julius

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hyde, Clarendon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cheetham, John Frederick

Idris, T. H. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson, R. S.

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

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Clynes, J. R.

Jenkins, J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Rendall, Athelstan

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Crean, Eugene

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Richardson, A.

Cremer, William Randal

Kekewich, Sir George

Rickett, J. Compton

Crooks, William

Kelley, George D.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dalziel, James Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Robinson, S.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Rose, Charles Day

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rowlands, J.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

Dillon, John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Duckworth, James

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

Seely, Major J. B.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Maclean, Donald

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Elibank, Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

Essex, R. W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Esslemont, George Birnie

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Everett, R. Lacey

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Callum, John M.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ferens, T. R.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Spicer, Sir Alfred

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Ffrench, Peter

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Findlay, Alexander

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Summerbell, T.

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Ginnell, L.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Glover, Thomas

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mooney, J. J.

Thorne, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Toulmin, George

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, Philip

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morse, L. L.

Verney, F. W.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Murphy, John

Wadsworth, J.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Murray, James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Napier, T. B.

Walsh, Stephen

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Walters, John Tudor

Hart-Davies, T.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Harwood, George

Norman, Sir Henry

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Wardle, George J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Waring, Walter

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Weir, James Galloway

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whitbread, Howard

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Hogan, Michael

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hooper, A. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Partington, Oswald

Whitehead, Rowland

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

1148

1149

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

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

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Winfrey, R.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

MR. COURTHOPEmoved a new clause repealing Clause 187 of the Army Act. He explained that the clause dealt with the application of the Army Act to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. If it were examined in connection with the early clauses of the Army Annual Bill some very curious inconsistencies would be revealed. In the second clause of the Bill the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were grouped with the United Kingdom in regard to the date when the Act should come into force, but in Clause 187, with which he was dealing, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man for certain purposes in the Act were to be deemed to be Colonies. Clause 2 of the Bill provided that in the Colonies the Act should come into force on 31st July. Therefore, there was this curious state of things—that, for certain purposes, viz., for the purposes of the regular forces in the Channel Islands, the Act should come into force on one day, and for the purposes of the Auxiliary Forces in the same islands the Act should come into force on another day. By Clause 186 it was provided that under certain conditions the Auxiliary Forces should be deemed to be part of His Majesty's Forces within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, there was hopeless complexity. In the Isle of Man the state of things was similar, although not identical. The Isle of Man was a colony for the purposes of the Militia, but not for the Auxiliary Forces. Thus, for Militia purposes the Act would come into force on one date, and for all other purposes on a different date. He submitted that that was a very undesirable state of things and would cause great confusion. He failed to find any reason for this extraordinary state of things, and it seemed to him that Clause 187 should be cut out. The effect of the clause would be that the existing inconsistencies would be done away with without any inconvenience to the Forces of the Crown or to those who administered them.
New Clause (Repeal of Section 187 of Army Act)—(Mr. Courthope.)—Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member was under an illusion. This clause of the Army Act did not apply to any place to which it was not extended by the Army Annual Act. The Army Annual Act had its own provisions with regard to the time of application. When the Army Act did apply, there were certain modifications of its provisions for the purpose of adapting the machinery of the General Act. If they took Clause 187 they found that, while the Act prima facie did apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, as regarded billeting and impressment of carriages, which was one subject by itself, the provisions of the Act were not extended either to the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man. As regarded sentences of penal servitude these islands were deemed to be Colonies. For the purposes of the Auxiliary Forces they were made Colonies also, and that took the Auxiliary Forces out of the establishment of the British Militia and other Forces of the Crown. When the principal Act applied, these particular modifications were made for this specific purpose. It would be found that the principal Act and the Army Annual Act were quite harmonious.
SIR F. BANBURYthought he understood the explanation of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman did not wish the Militia in the Isle of Man to come under the Army Annual Act, but he wished to preserve that body as an independent force under the command of the Governor.
MR. HALDANE: I was not touching that question; I was only taking it as a particular case of the alteration under the Army Annual Bill. I see no reason for disagreeing with the statement of my hon. friend that in the Isle of Man the Militia for certain purposes would not be under the provisions of the Army Act.
SIR F. BANBURYconsidered that that was an extremely awkward predicament for the Militia to be in, for they would find great difficulty in discovering whether they were under the provisions of the Army Annual Act or not. The officers, might be able to understand the

1151
extreme technicality of the Act, but the poor ordinary Militiaman would not. They would, no doubt, find that they had committed offences which, if they had understood the Army Annual Act, they would not have committed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the clause which it was proposed to omit exempted from impressment of carriages and billeting the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. But what were the objections to provisions as to billeting andimpressment of carriages applying to those islands? If the provisions were good, why should they not be operative there also? He could see no reason why, if troops required the use of carriages, carts, wagons and accommodation, they should not be able to have them in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as elsewhere. Unless some better explanation were given by the Secretary for War as to why he objected to the new clause, he should certainly support it.
MR. CLAUDE HAYconsidered that it was abundantly clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very difficult for persons unaccustomed to the language in which these documents were couched to understand the clause. He therefore appealed to the Secretary for War to find words, before the Report stage, which would make it quite clear to all the Forces how they stood in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands with respect to billeting and other provisions in Clause 187 of the Army Act. It seemed somewhat ridiculous that in those two parts of the King's dominions there should be no provision for impressment of carriages and for billeting when necessary.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 262. (Division List No. 80).

AYES.

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hamilton, Marquess of

Starkey, John R.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmeley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hunt, Rowland

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

Cave, George

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

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Tellers for the Ayes.—Mr. Courthope and Mr. Claude Hay.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Craik, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Agnew, George William

Bell, Richard

Brooke, Stopford

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bertram, Julius

Byles, William Pollard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Channing, Sir Francie Allston

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Billson, Alfred

Cheetham, John Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Black, Arthur W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barber, John

Bottomley, Horatio

Clancy, John Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Clough, William

Barnes G. N.

Bowerman, C. W.

Clynes, J. R.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Brigg, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Richardson, A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jowett, F. W.

Rickett, J. Compton.

Crean, Eugene

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cremer, William Randal

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crooks, William

Kelley, George D.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Crosfield, A. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradfr'd

Dalziel, James Henry

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamy, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robinson, S.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Lamont, Norman

Roche, John (Gal way, East)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Rose, Charles Day

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Rowlands, J.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dillon, John

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Scott, A.H. (Ashton underLyne

Duckworth, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Shackleton, David James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Maclean, Donald

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

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Elibank, Master of

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, R. W.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, John M.

Snowden, P.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Crae, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Ferens, T. R.

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Massie, J.

Summerbell, T.

Findlay, Alexander

Meehan, Patrick A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Molteno, Percy Alport

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe)

Gill, A. H.

Montagu, E. S.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Ginnell, L.

Mooney, J. J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thomasson, Franklin

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Grant, Corrie

Morrell, Philip

Toulmin, George

Greenwood, Hamer (York)

Morse, L. L.

Verney, F. W.

Gulland, John W.

Murphy, John

Wadsworth, J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murray, James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Napier, T. B.

Walsh, Stephen

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Walters, John Tudor

Halpin, J.

Nolan, Joseph

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

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Norman, Sir Henry

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wardle, George J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Waring, Walter

Hart-Davies, T.

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Weir, James Galloway

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitbread, Howard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Malley, William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Higham, John Sharp

Partington, Oswald

Whitehead, Rowland

Hobart, Sir Robert

Paul, Herbert

Whiteley, John Henry(Halifax)

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wilkie, Alexander

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pirie, Duncan V.

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

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Winfrey, R.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Jackson, R. S.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jenkins, J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A Pease.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rees, J. D.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Rendall, Athelstan

CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved a new clause, the effect of which was to increase the penalty provided in sub-section 4 of Clause 98 of the Act, on a summary conviction, for interfering with the recruiting of his Majesty's forces from £20 to £50, or three months imprisonment. He wished to lay special stress upon the seriousness of the crime of directly or indirectly interfering with recruiting. In certain parts of Ireland the present fine had proved insufficient to prevent seditious literature being circulated and intimidation practised. The men who, undeterred by that intimidation had joined the territorial regiments in Ireland had proved to be as good soldiers as served anywhere in His Majesty's dominions; therefore his remarks must not be considered as casting any reflection upon such well known honourable regiments as they had in Ireland. Recruits from all sections of the population having once accepted service proved themselves—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not allow this new clause to be made an excuse for dealing with the Irish recruiting question. The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the question whether or not the penalty for interference with recruiting should be altered.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLasked whether the hon. and gallant Member was not entitled to show the extent of the mischief.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that was the proper time to go into the question of Irish recruiting.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLasked when would be the proper time. It seemed impossible that there could be a more suitable or reasonable opportunity for considering the matter than when a clause was moved which aimed directly at the prevention of interference with enlistment.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the question was simply whether or not the penalty should be increased.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that under the circumstances he could do no more than formally move his proposed new clause.
New clause (Additional Penalty on interference with recruiting)—(Captain Craig.)—brought up and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that although the new clause proposed to increase the penalty for interfering with recruiting, under the ruling of the Chair they were not allowed to give any reason why the penalty should be increased. That seemed to be a very hard ruling—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must not criticise the ruling of the Chair. Under the circumstances in which the House was sitting he thought he was perfectly justified in refusing to allow the question of recruiting in Ireland to be discussed on that occasion.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it was a curious thing that the Chairman should accept a clause dealing with an increased penalty for interference with recruiting, and then refuse to allow proof to be brought of such interference.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not criticise my ruling.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I bow to your ruling, Sir.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLpointed out that the object of the new clause was to make more real and effective the existing enactment in the Army Act in reference to any attempt to interfere, directly or indirectly, with recruiting for His Majesty's Army. In order to keep within the ruling of the Chair, he would avoid going into detail, but in Ireland there existed at present an anti-enlistment crusade carried on by secret means, and the only available method of dealing with it was to deal with the persons who circulated anti-enlistment pamphlets and posted up intimidatory notices. More stringent measures were absolutely essential if they were to preserve what in the past had been one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for men who had proved a credit to their native land and to the Empire. Public opinion was

1157
not the same in Ireland as here, and the whole pressure of powerful political organisations was behind the men carrying on the anti-recruiting crusade. The humble men who might be encouraged to enlist were often quite incapable of resisting the pressure. The matter was one of the most serious that could be raised on the Army Bill, the agitation having already done great injury to recruiting in the Army. Had a representative of the Irish Government been present he would have asked whether the practice enforced by the late Administration, under which they took into custody persons caught in the act of posting intimidatory or seditious notices, had been countermanded by a circular of His Majesty's advisers. Instead of checking the evil, the Government were practically giving increased facilities to the persons engaged in that seditious and anti-enlisting crusade.
*THE CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that they were not now discussing the action of His Majesty's Government, and he must confine himself to the necessity for increasing the penalty.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he would content himself with pressing upon the Committee the strong necessity for dealing by legislation with the daily increasing seditious agitation in Ireland, the avowed purpose of which was to exclude all Irishmen from service in His Majesty's forces, naval or military.
MR. J. MACVEAGHpointed out that the pamphlet by means of which it was said the anti enlistment crusade was carried on was really a reprint from the Annual Report of the Registrar-General on the morality of the Army. And as to the alleged secret means, the pamphlets were issued by the Irish Unionist Alliance, of Grafton Street, Dublin.
MR. BUCHANANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 272, Noes, 57. (Division List No. 81.)

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Brooke, Stopford

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Armitage, R.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Byles, William Pollard

Elibank, Master of

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Essex, R. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Esslemont, George Birnie

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Barker, John

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, William

Ferens, T. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W)

Ffrench, Peter

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Beale, W. P.

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinat'd

Findlay, Alexander

Bell, Richard

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't

Crean, Eugene

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Cremer, William Randal

Gill, A. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crooks, William

Ginnell, L.

Bertram, Julius

Crosfield, A. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Bethell, Sir J.H. Essex, Romfd)

Dalziel, James Henry

Glover, Thomas

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Grant, Corrie

Billson, Alfred

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gulland, John W.

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bottomley, Horatio

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Halpin, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dillon, John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Brigg, John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duckworth, James

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

Harwood, George

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hayden, John Patrick

Massie, J.

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shackleton, David James

Healy, Timothy Michael

Meehan, Patrick A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Henry, Charles S.

Montagu, E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

Mooney, J. J.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Snowden, P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hogan, Michael

Morrell, Philip

Soares, Ernest J.

Hooper, A. G.

Morse, L. L.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Murphy, John

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't, N

Murray, James

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast')

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Idris, T. H. W.

Norman, Sir Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jenkins, J.

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Dowd, John

Thomasson, Franklin

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shee, James John

Toulmin, George

Kekewich, Sir George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Kelley, George D.

Paul, Herbert

Vivian, Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wadsworth, J.

Kilbride, Denis

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lamont, Norman

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

Wardle, George J.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Waring, Walter

Leese, SirJosephF. (Accrington

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, J. D.

Weir, James Galloway

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rendall, Athelstan

Whitbread, Howard

Lough, Thomas

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richardson, A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitehead, Rowland

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilkie, Alexander

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williamson, A.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W.R.)

M'Callum, John M.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

M'Crae, George

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Winfrey, R.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Rose, Charles Day

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mallet, Charles E.

Runciman, Walter

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

NOES.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Craik, Sir Henry

Ashley, W. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Dalrymple, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

Cave, George

Fell, Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Haddock, George R.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Courthope, G. Loyd

Helmsley, Viscount

1160

1161

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edmd's

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

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

Hunt, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Liddell, Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Younger, George

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

Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Starkey, John R.

Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Morpeth, Viscount

Turnour, Viscount

Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 288. (Division List No. 82.)

AYES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Haddock, George R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Bowles, G. Stewart.

Houston, Robort Paterson

Turnour, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Liddell, Henry

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Cave, George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

Meysey-Thompton, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Craig and Major Coates.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

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

Agnew, George William

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Billson, Alfred

Cooper, G. J.

Armitage, R.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Black, Arthur W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bottomley, Horatio

Cox, Harold

Astbury-John Meir

Boulton, A. C. F.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bowerman, C. W.

Crean, Eugene

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cremer, William Randal

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Brigg, John

Crooks, William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crosfield, A. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

Dalziel, James Henry

Barker, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Barnard, E. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Daies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barnes, G. N.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Davies W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Beale, W. P.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Bell, Richard

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Dillon, John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dobson, Thomas W.

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Duckworth, James

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clough, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Bertram, Julius

Clynes, J. R.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robinson, S.

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Essex, R. W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Rose, Charles Day

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Fenwich, Charles

Maclean, Donald

Runciman, Walter

Ferens, T. R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Ffreneh, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gill, A. H.

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ginnell, L.

Mallet, Charles E.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Glover, Thomas

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Grant, Corrie

Marnham, F. J.

Snowden, P.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Massie, J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gulland, John W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Soares, Ernest J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Meehan, Patrick A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Halpin, J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Montagu, E. S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mooney, J. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hart-Davies, T.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Summerbell, T.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.

Morrell, Philip

Sutherland, J. E.

Harwood, George

Morse, L. L.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Murphy, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murray, James

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hemmerde, Edward George

Napier, T. B.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Henry, Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Thomasson, Franklin

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norman, Sir Henry

Thorne, William

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Toulmin, George

Hogan, Michael

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

Hooper, A. G.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Vivian, Henry

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wadsworth, J.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walsh, Stephen

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Dowd, John

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Malley, William

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

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Shee, James John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jackson, R. S.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wardle, George J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Partington, Oswald

Waring, Walter

Jenkins, J.

Paul, Herbert

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Perks, Robert William

Weir, James Galloway

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Whitbread, Howard

Jowett, F. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

White, George (Norfolk)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Kekewich, Sir George

Price,C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Whitehead, Rowland

Kelley, George D.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Redmond, William (Clare)

Williams, Llewelyn Carmarth'n

Laidlaw, Robert

Rees, J. D.

Williams, Oswold (Merioneth)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rendall, Athelstan

Williamson, A.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mp'n)

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

Lamon, Norman

Richardson, A.

Winfrey, R.

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tellers for the Noes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

MR. T. L. CORBETTmoved a new Clause providing that the accused soldier should have the right to ask for written evidence. The object of his Amendment was simply to ensure that the accused should see the evidence in writing. ["Speak up."]
*THE CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members will keep quiet it will be quite possible to hear the hon. Member.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid there were none so deaf as those who would not hear. The clause provided that the evidence should be committed to writing, and he wanted the soldier to have the right to see it. He did not wish to weary the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. They all recognised his courtesy and admitted he was fighting the battle in a way worthy of a War Minister, but in the interest of justice for the uneducated man he asked the right hon. gentleman to accept this Amendment.
MR. J. MACVEAGH: It is now after a quarter to three.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: What does that matter?
MR. J. MACVEAGH: The hon. Member is talking against time.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the hon. Member accused him of doing what he had often done himself. He could say with a clear conscience that no one had spoken less against time than he had in the past. His only object was to assist the Government and to get the Bill made clear.
New Clause (Amendment of Army Act as to right of accused to have evidence in writing)—brought up and read the first time.—(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid that though the purpose of the Clause was laudable he feared that the object aimed at by the hon. Member would be defeated by the very means he suggested. By the existing regulations the evidence would be taken in writing in a court-martial, but in the case of subordinate proceedings before a commanding officer the provision would mean a burden to the prisoner and not a relief.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 304. (Division List No. 83.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. SirAlex. F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Ashley, W. W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nield, Herbert

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Forster, Henry William

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hills, J. W.

Turnour, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R

Williams Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. ViotorC.W.

Liddell, Henry

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin,S.

Younger, George

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Binn'gham

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Courthope, G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. T. L. Corbett and Mr. Charles Craig.

Craig, Caipt. James (Down, E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craik, Sir Henry

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Dalymple, Viscount

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Agnew, George William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Armitage, R.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kelley, George D.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

Dillon, John

Kilbride, Denis

Astbury, John Meir

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duckworth, James

Laidlaw, Rober

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E

Barker, John

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Barnard, E. B.

Essex, R. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Barnes, G. N.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lewis, John Herbert

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

Lough, Thomas

Beck, A. Cecil

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bell, Richard

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bellairs, Carylon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonpt

Finlday, Alexander

Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Maclean, Donald

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Bertram, Julius

Fullerton, Hugh

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bethell, Sir J.H. Essex,Romfd

Gibb, James (Harrow)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, E.)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gill, A. H.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Billson, Alfred

Ginnell, L.

M'Callum, John M.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

M'Crae, George

Black, Arthur W

Glover, Thomas

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Boland, John

Grant, Corrie

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

Bottomley, Horatio

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Micking, Major G.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mallet, Charles E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Brigg, John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marnham, F. J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Massie, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Halpin, J.

Masterman. C. F. G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Meehan, Patrick A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Montagu, E. S.

Byles, William Pollard

Hart-Davis, T.

Mooney, J. J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harwood, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Chance, Frederick William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morrell, Philip

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hayden, John Patrick

Morse, L. L.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. E.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murphy, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hemmerde, Edward George

Murray, James

Clancy, John Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Sir Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hogan, Michael

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cooper, G. J.

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Cotton, Sir J. H. S.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cox, Harold

Hudson, Walter

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.).

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Crean, Eugene

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Dowd, John

Cremer, William Randal

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Crooks, William

Jackson, R. S.

O'Malley, William

Crosfield, A. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Shee, James John

Dalziel, James Henry

Jardine, Sir J.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jenkins, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Paul, Herbert

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

1168

1169

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Verney, F. W.

Perks, Robert William

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Vivian, Henry

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sears, J. E.

Wadsworth, J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shackleton, David James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walsh, Stephen

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

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

Walters, John Tudor

Pullar, Sir Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Raphael, Herbert H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wardle, George J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waring, Walter

Rees, J. D.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Rendall, Athelstan

Snowdon, P.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverham'n

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Richardson, A.

Soares, Ernest S.

Weir, James Galloway

Rickett, J. Compton

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitbread, Howard

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitehead, Rowland

Roberts, John H. Denbighs.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Summerbell, T.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Sutherland, J. E.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williamson, A.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Winfrey, R.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Rowlands, J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Tellers for the Noes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Runciman, Walter

Thorne, William

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDmoved a new clause, with the object of deleting the word "shamefully" from the fourth section of the Act, which relates to court-martials on officers who have "shamefully" abandoned or surrendered their posts. He was, he said, not going to weary the Committee. He only desired to give Ministers an opportunity of carrying out a reform which many of them had been demanding for years. The object of the clause as it stood in the original Act was to provide for a court-martial on an officer who had abandoned or surrendered his post, and upon conviction he was liable to sentence of death or such less penalty as might be awarded. He had heard the point discussed on three occasions, and on one of them the present Attorney-General, who he was sorry not to see in his place, so convinced him by his eloquent pleading that the word "shameful" ought to be left out that he then and there made up his mind that should he over be in opposition he would do his utmost to get such a reform carried. He presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman was still of the same opinion he could not possibly have changed his mind in two years. Army officers were in a different position from naval officers in this matter. The
1170
latter charged with a like offence were afforded an opportunity of clearing themselves at a court-martial. An Army officer was not, and the result was that on many occasions the military authorities had hesitated to have a court-martial because they did not see their way to try an officer for a "shameful" act, the consequence being that the accused officer had been afforded no opportunity of clearing his character and setting himself right in the face of the world. The retention of the word "shameful" was the cause of considerable injustice to many officers during the Boer War. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to consult his colleagues on this Amendment and to carry out their views.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid the military authorities held that it was essential to retain the word, otherwise it would be impossible to justify the death penalty for the offence of abandoning a post. To strike out the word would be to vitiate the whole principle on which the clause was founded.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman did not care to avail himself of the opportunity offered him to carry out the views of his own colleagues, he did not feel called upon to press the matter, and would therefore withdraw his proposal.
Proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. A. J. BALFOURmoved to report progress, but said that he did not intend to press the Motion to a division if, as he hoped, they came to an agreement with regard to the future course of business. He was in the same relatively fortunate position as the Prime Minister, of being able to approach the question without the memory of an all-night sitting behind him, and he was, of course, dependent on hearsay for an account of the course of the controversy, and of the reasons which had brought them to their present position. He could not help regretting, as he always did regret, that the House or the Committee should be driven to these very prolonged and exhausting sittings. If he had been rightly informed, he could not help expressing his regret at the course the Government had adopted. He understood that the whole difficulty had arisen from the Government's insisting on taking the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on the previous night, instead of permitting the House, in the ordinary course, to go on with the discussion in Committee of the Bill which had kept them there for so many hours. He asked the Prime Minister the other day as to the course of business, and the reply was perfectly explicit. He would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the exact words he used. On March 14th the right hon. Gentleman said that on Thursday (that was that day) it was proposed to move the Speaker out of the chair on the Civil Service Estimates and to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. No words could be more precise or less capable of being misunderstood. He was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman had said anything to qualify that statement. But there was a reason given that morning for departing from that specific pledge. He was informed that that reason was based on an imaginary practice which required the successive stages of the
1172
Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken on successive days. There was no such rule in existence. The Prime Minister knew that it was pure imagination, and they had only to look back to quite recent records to see that there was no justification for the statement. Last year the Government themselves did not take the stages of the Bill on successive days. It might be said that the intervening day—a Friday—was a private Members' day, and that therefore the Bill was taken on successive Government days. He did not think that even that could be held to be adequate justification for the alleged rule; but if it were, let them go back to 1905. When the late Government was in office there was an acute controversy on questions connected with the Army. Then. far more than now, there was difficulty in obeying the law which required that certain financial business should be done before March 31st, because they did not finish the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill until March 30th; yet under that pressure the Government allowed a day to intervene between the Committee stage and the Third Reading. Votes A and 1 of the Army Estimates were interpolated by the Government of that day between the Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Bill. The Committee would see, therefore, that the alleged reason why the explicit pledge was departed from was one which had no basis either in Parliamentary practice or in Parliamentary law. There was no foundation for the argument except in the imagination of Ministers. The Prime Minister, like himself, had had long experience of the House of Commons, and would admit that when a pledge of the Government was broken, for a reason which was clearly a bad reason, there must arise a state of feeling which led to these prolonged, exhaustive, and fruitless sittings. The Opposition had acted as any other Opposition in their place would have done. The Government, he hoped, would now feel that had there been a little more anxiety to meet the legitimate desires of the Opposition they would not then be continuing a sitting begun more than twenty-four and a half hours before. He hoped that business would now be brought to a rapid termination, and he begged to move his Resolution pro forma. He regretted all that had occurred, but,

1173
unless he had been wholly misinformed, the blame must rest on the shoulders of those who had rashly and inexpediently departed from the pledged word of the Leader of the House, and who had justified their actions by alleged Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary law which had no justification either in the Standing Orders or in the records of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrecognised the dispassionate and reasonable spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. He had referred to the legitimate desires of the Opposition, but the whole difficulty had arisen from the fact that the Government did yield to the legitimate desires of the Opposition. ["No."] The Government had proposed that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill should be taken on Tuesday, and it was on that footing he named Thursday as the night for the Third Reading. But in accordance with what the Government thought the legitimate desire of the Opposition they advanced the stage by a day, and gave up Monday to the Second Reading, and therefore the whole scheme of business he had proposed, so far as it affected the Consolidated Fund Bill, was altered by being brought forward by one day. He proposed that the Second Reading should be taken on Tuesday, Committee on Wednesday, and Third Reading on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said "No, we must have the Second Reading on Monday." Very well, the Government agreed, and that was the whole matter. And he would remind the Committee that there was no great constitutional question affected by this whole matter. The Consolidated Fund Bill had not the peculiar virtues of an Appropriation Bill. That was a doctrine he had often heard expounded by an authority the right hon. Gentleman would recognise. Sir W. Harcourt had always objected to the idea that the Consolidated Fund Bill had the peculiar sanctity which was possessed by the Appropriation Bill. There was ample opportunity given at this period of the session for the discussion of general
1174
questions affecting the conduct of the Government. There were not only the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but there was also the opportunity afforded by the Motion to adjourn for the Easter holiday. There was nothing unreasonable, unusual, or unfair in what had happened at all. And even supposing the Government had been mistaken in bringing forward that stage of the Bill, was that any reason for occupying he did not know how many hours in discussing the details of the Army Bill, which might have been disposed of in an hour? [Cries of "Yes."] Was it a sufficient reason for all the disturbance that had been caused to the House? The idea was to punish the Government for a certain fancied wrong over the Consolidated Fund Bill by talking about a measure which it was admitted might have been disposed of in about an hour. ["No, no."] That was the reason put forward by the right hon. gentleman. When he spoke before he had to deal with comparatively unimportant persons.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD,on a point of order, asked whether the Prime Minister had any right to describe Members of the House as "unimportant" Members.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid his phrase was "comparatively unimportant" Members. If all Members on the other side were of equal importance that did not say much for the estimate in which they professed to hold the leader of their Party. That, too, was the excuse put forward by the Leader of the Party in cold blood, without any of the warmth which might be generated by an all-night sitting, in justification of what had happened. He had another point to urge, and to some hon. Members it might seem to be a strange point. He was not supposed to be a particular partisan of the House of Lords, but the other House had to be considered in these arrangements; and therefore it was necessary for the Government to take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill the previous night, because the House of Lords had to receive the Bill that day in order that they might dispose of it before adjourning for the Easter recess. The whole thing, therefore, was perfectly straight. On the invitation, and at the expressed desire, of

1175
the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, the Government put the business forward a day. That arrangement having been made, and arrangements elsewhere having been made on that footing, the Government proceeded to deal day after day with the several stages of the Bill. But, whatever might be said of the arrangement, there was no justification for keeping the House sitting from one o'clock in the morning until half-past three o'clock in the afternoon in order to discuss a series of Amendments which, by confession of hon. Members opposite, could have been disposed of in one hour. [Cries of "No."] In any case the Government had no intention whatever to yield a point in the matter, because they were perfectly right. He was happy to gather that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were not going to carry on the struggle any longer [Opposition cries of "We will"], and if that was so, the Government would be relieved and pleased. Should the case be otherwise, however, the Government would insist upon proceeding with the programme they had indicated.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that his experience of the House was a long one, but he had never listened to a more infelicitous speech and a more infelicitous intervention by a Leader of the House. He appealed to hon. Members as a whole to say whether he had not put the case of the Opposition in a moderate way; but how had he been met by the right hon. Gentleman? [An Hon. Member: By a plain straightforward statement.] The right hon. Gentleman whose Government had deliberately—had at all events broken its pledge [Ministerial cries of "No."] expressed no regret, felt no regret, and was apparently the fortunate Leader of a Party which felt no regret. He would like to appeal in this matter to a Party in that House which had had; many sharp collisions with every Government successively, but had always kept their pledges, and he ventured to say that they had listened with disgust and horror at the absolutely reckless repudiation of a Parliamentary pledge.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman alludes to the Irish Party. We have during the hours since eleven o'clock last night shown our disgust and
1176
horror at the action of the Government by remaining up to support them.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman mistook his point. He never doubted that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to support the Government; but it did not follow that he approved of their conduct. The Prime Minister did not deny that so far as form was concerned he had broken his pledge. The only question was whether he had kept it in the spirit. What was the right hon. Gentleman's justification? That when he said the Third Reading was going to be taken on Thursday he intended Committee to be taken on Wednesday and the Second Reading on Tuesday. In answer to an appeal he ventured to make, the right hon. Gentleman altered the Second Reading from Tuesday, which was only half a day, to Monday, which was a whole day, and he contended that that carried with it by implication the alteration of the Third Reading. It was not on implications of that kind that public business could be conducted. If the Third Reading Stage needed to be altered they ought to have had notice of that alteration. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was out of pure kindness to the Opposition that he had transferred the Second Reading from Tuesday to Monday. It was, indeed, the result of an appeal made by him, but that could never have been carried out if the Opposition had not agreed to the preliminary stage which made it possible to take the Second Reading on Monday. As the Opposition did not object to that preliminary stage, the Government were able to advance their business by a day. Nothing occurred which justified the right hon. Gentleman in without notice violently altering the programme. It was impossible to conduct the business of the House smoothly and without friction unless every Party felt that they had the fullest right to rely on the spirit and the letter of any statement with regard to business made by the Leader of the House. On more than one occasion last session slight difficulties arose, and he was sorry to say that a difficulty had arisen again. The right hon. Gentleman, so far from admitting that he had unintentionally done some wrong, seemed to think all the wrong was on the side of the Opposition. He had said that whilst they admitted that

1177
the business of the Army Annual Bill could be done in an hour they had taken a great many hours over it. Who had admitted that it could be done in an hour? [Cries of "Banbury" and "Roberts."]
SIR F. BANBURYrose to make a personal explanation. He said that at half-past eleven o'clock the night before he rose in his place, and pointed out that if the Government would take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Thursday the Opposition would endeavour to meet them in discussing the Army Annual Bill. He added that he did not suppose they would sit much after twelve or one o'clock, but the hon. Member for West Derby Division of Liverpool at once dissented from that view.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he challenged the statement that anyone on that side of the House said the Bill could properly be discussed in an hour. [Cries of "Roberts."] He appealed to past experience and practice. He knew indeed of no case in previous years in which the House had commenced the consideration of the Army (Annual)Bill at two in the morning. He did not know why the present Opposition should be supposed to have loss to say on that Bill than their predecessors, who, though not embittered by any breach of pledges, had kept the House sitting till a fresh Parliamentary day had begun, not in one year, but in many years. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman's speech was either conciliatory in tone or reasonable in substance. However big his majority might be, he was not acting in the light way to get business through the House. He was not carrying on the
traditions of his predecessors. Mr. Glads one would never have done what the right hon. Gentleman had done. Unless they could regain some fresh confidence in the programmes of business which the right hon. Gentleman announced, he did not see how the harmony which, notwithstanding political differences, had always characterised that Assembly could be maintained.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that since he was the hon. Member who was responsible for the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill not being taken on consecutive days on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition he would like to say a few words. He, for one, deprecated the statement that the Army Annual Bill could be discussed in one hour; it was a ridiculous assertion. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that it was on his request that in 1905 Votes A and 1 were interpolated between the Committee Stage and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the reason was that it had been thought necessary owing to the congestion of business to put those Votes into the Closure Resolution; but as there were manifold changes proposed in the Army he suggested that those Votes should be taken out and discussed at another time. The right hon. Gentleman met him with great courtesy which he was always glad to acknowledge, and took out the Votes from the Closure Resolution. It was for that reason that in that year the various stages of the Bill were not taken on consecutive days.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 84.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.HughO.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craik, Sir Henry

Ashley, W. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cave, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fell, Arthur

Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Cleland, J. W.

Forster, Henry William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Pirm'gham)

Haddock, George R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

Hamilton, Marqess of

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heaton, John Henniker

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Helmsley, Viscount

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

Hills, J. W.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Nield, Herbert

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

Hunt, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Liddell, Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Younger, George

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Albert Edward

Magnus, Sir Philip

Starkey, John R.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Clough, William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clynes, J. R.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Agnew, George William

Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gulland, John W.

Armitage, R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Collins, SirWm. J(S.Pancras, W

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Astbury, John Meir

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd

Halpin, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harcourt, Hon. Right Lewis

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cox, Harold

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crean, Eugene

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cremer, William Randal

Hart-Davies, T.

Barker, John

Crombie, John William

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crooks, William

Harwood, George

Barnes, G. N.

Crosfield, A. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beale, W. P.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Healy, Timothy Michael

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Beck, A. Cecil

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bell, Richard

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Henry, Charles S.

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Higham, John Sharp

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hobart, Sir Robert

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dillon, John

Hogan, Michael

Bertram, Julius

Duckworth, James

Hooper, A. G.

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

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Billson, Alfred

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hudson, Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Boland, John

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hyde, Clarendon

Bottomley, Horatio

Elibank, Master of

Idris, T. H. W.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jackson, R. S.

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jardine, Sir J.

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Jenkins, J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brooke, Stopford

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, SirD. Brynmor (Swansea

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Jones, Willliam (Carnarvonshire

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ffrench, Peter

Jowett, F. W.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kearley, Hudson E.

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Findlay, Alexander

Kekewich, Sir George

Byles, William Pollard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kelley, George D.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Kilbride, Denis

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Chance, Frederick William

Ginnell, L.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Glover, Thomas

Lambert, George

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gooch, George Peabody

Lamont, Norman

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Grant, Corrie

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

O'Malley, William

Snowdon, P.

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Mara, James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

O'Shee, James John

Soares, Ernest J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Spicer, Sir Albert

Lewis, John Herbert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Paul, Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lough, Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lundon, W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lupton, Arnold

Perks, Robert William

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald,J. R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sutherland, J. E.

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Maclean, Donald

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Callum, John M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thorne, William

M'Crae, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomkinson, James

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rees, J. D.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mallet, Charles E.

Richardson, A.

Verney, F. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rickett, J. Compton

Vivian, Henry

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wadsworth, J.

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Walters, John Tudor

Massie, J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wardle, George J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robinson, S.

Waring, Walter

Montagu, E. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Mooney, J. J.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Morrell, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitbread, Howard

Morse, L. L.

Rose, Charles Day

White, George (Norfolk)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowlands, J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Murphy, John

Runciman, Walter

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Murray, James

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitehead, Rowland

Napier, T. B.

Samuel,HerbertL.(Cleveland)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilkie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Williains,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sears, J. E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seely, Major J. B.

Williamson, A

Nuttall, Harry

Shackleton, David James

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Winfrey, R.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

O'Dowd, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: moved a clause the object of which was to alter the terms of Clause 42 of the Act in order to give an officer the same right of redress as was possessed by the private soldier. In former years this had been a favourite Amendment of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The very desirable alteration which he proposed was that an officer who suffered, or considered he suffered, through the wrong of his superior officer should have the right to have the matter inquired into by the Commander-in-Chief and redress granted to him.
New Clause (Amendment of Section 42 as to redress of wrongs complained of by officer)—(Mr. W. Rutherford)—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANE: thought the Amendment, if carried, would deprive the officer who considered he had a right of redress for some act of his superior officer of his best chance of getting justice, because the complaint would go to the Commander-in-Chief, who would be the sole judge

1183
whether or not redress should be given. Under the present system the Commander-in-Chief was required to make a statutory report, which came before the Secretary of State. That was a desirable procedure in that it secured the attention of some one absolutely independent to the matter.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of doing a piece of
justice and he had declined to accept it. He had no option, therefore, in view of the numerical majority behind the right hon. gentleman, but to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Leave to withdraw the clause refused.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 306. (Division List No. 85.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. SirAlex. F.

Craig,Captain James (Down, E.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.Sir H.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nield, Herbert

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Heaton, John Henniker

Starkey, John R.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

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

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Liddell, Henry

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Mr. T. L. Corbett and Mr. Claude Hay.

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Bottomley, Horatio

Cory, Clifford John

Agnew, George William

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bowerman, C. W.

Craig, Herbert J (Tynemouth)

Armitage, R.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crean, Eugene

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crombie, John William

Astbury, John Meir

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crosfield, A. H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dalziel, James Henry

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barker, John

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Beale, W. P.

Chance, Frederick William

Dillon, John

Beauchamp, E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Duckworth, James

Beck, A. Cecil

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Bell, Richard

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Benn,Sir J.Williams (Devonp't

Clancy, John Joseph

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

Cleland, J. W.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Bennett, E. N.

Clough, William

Elibank, Master of

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clynes, J. R.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bertram, Julius

Coats,SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Essex, R. W.

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

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Esslemont, George Birnie

Billson, Alfred

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Everett, R. Lacey

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Collins,Sir WmJ.(S.Pancras,W.

Fenwick, Charles

Black, Arthur W.

Cooper, G. J.

Ferens, T. R.

Boland, John

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinstd

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Ffrench, Peter

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson, S.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Findlay, Alexander

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

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maclean, Donald

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Fullerton, Hugh

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gill, A. H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ginnell, L.

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.

Rose, Charles Day

Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herbert John

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

Rowlands, J.

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Crae, George

Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Grant, Corrie

M'Hugh, Patrick, A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

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

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Micking, Major G.

Sears, J. E.

Gulland, John W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Seely, Major J. B.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Gywnn, Stephen Lucius

Mansfield,H.Rendall (Lincoln)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston

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

Halpin, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Massie, J.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Hart-Davies, T.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Snowden, P.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, E. S.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Mooney, J. J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Harwood, George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanley,Hon.A.Lyulph (Chesh.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morse, L. L.

Steadman, W. C.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Straehey, Sir Edward

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murphy, John

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Napier, T. B.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Henry, Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Summerbell, T.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Sutherland, J. E.

Higham, John Sharp

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hodge, John

O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thorne, William

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Tomkinson, James

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Malley, William

Toulmin, George

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Mara, James

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Jackson, R. S.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Verney, F. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wadsworth, J.

Jenkins, J.

Paul, Herbert

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Perks, Robert William

Wardle, George J.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Waring, Walter

Jowett, F. W.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Weir, James Galloway

Kelley, George D.

Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.

Whitbread, Howard

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Kilbride, Denis

Pullar, Sir Robert

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Radford, G. H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lambert, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Rees, J. D.

Williams,Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Lea,Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

Rendall, Athelstan

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

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

Williamson, A.

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

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

Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

Rickett, J. Compton

Winfrey, R.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lough, Thomas

Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

Lundon, W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: moved a new clause to provide that no recruit under 18 years of age should be enlisted, and that each recruit should produce his birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of his age. He desired to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of carrying out the expressed wishes of many of his supporters. Moreover, as the Government had declared their intention of reducing the Army, one of the best ways of effecting such a reduction was to stop the enlistment of undesirable and immature recruits.
New Clause (Addition to Part II. of Army Act as to age of enlistment)—(Mr. William Rutherford)—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid there might be circumstances under which it would be possible to look for recruits at an even later age than 18. If they could be get at 19, or even older, it would be of great advantage to the Army, and would be in accordance with the practice of the best
foreign armies. But the War Office must cut their coat according to their cloth and must frame their regulations according to the necessities of the case. Accordingly, to stereotype the age at 18 would not only be embarrassing in present circumstances, but would not represent the best age at which recruiting could take place. It was much better and more convenient from every point of view to fix the age from time to time according to circumstances.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDexplained that the object of the clause was not to fix the age for recruiting, but to lay down an age below which recruiting should not take place.
MR. HALDANEsaid that an emergency could be conceived in which it might be desirable to take recruits at another age and train them. The effect of the proposal would be to take away the power of making regulations to suit varying circumstances, and that would be a retrograde step.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 292. (Division List No. 86.)

AYES.

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Liddell, Henry

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.Sir H.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Balcarres, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fletcher, J. S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Parker,Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Harwood, George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Heaton, John Henniker

Seely, Major J. B.

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

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

Thomson,W Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thorne, William

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Hills, J. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

Hornby,Sir William Henry

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Claude Hay.

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Astbury, John Meir

Barker, John

Agnew, George William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Armitage, R.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beale, W. P.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Beauchamp, E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kean, John

Bell, Richard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Bcnn,Sir J.Williams (Devonp'rt

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mallet, Charles E.

Bennett, E. N.

Ginnell, L.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Bertram, Julius

Glover, Thomas

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

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

Gooch, George Peabody

Marnham, F. J.

Billson, Alfred

Grant, Corrie

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Massie, J.

Black, Arthur W.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Masterman, C. F. G.

Boland, John

Gulland, John W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bramsdon, T. A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mooney, J. J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Halpin, J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hardie,J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Morrell, Phillip

Brooke, Stopford

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hart-Davies, T.

Murphy, John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Napier, T. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nolan, Joseph

Byles, William Pollard

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Chance, Frederick William

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hodge, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Cleland, J. W.

Hooper, A G.

O' Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.)

Clough, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Malley, William

Clynes, J. R.

Hudson, Walter

O'Mara, James

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

Hudson, Alfred Eddison

O'Shee, James John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cooper, G. J.

Jackson, R. S.

Paul, Herbert

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Cory, Clifford John

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crean, Eugene

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cremer, William Randal

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crombie, John William

Jowett, F. W.

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

Crooks, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pullar, Sir Robert

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Radford, G. H.

Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Laidlaw, Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Limb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh,S.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Limbert, George

Rees, J. D.

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

Lamont, Norman

Rendall, Athelstan

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras,E.

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

Dillon, John

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

Duckworth, James

Lever,A Levy(Essex,Harwich

Rickett, J. Compton

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Lewis, John Herbert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lough, Thomas

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lundon, W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Elibank, Master of

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Robinson, S.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Essex, R. W.

Maclean, Donald

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fenwick, Charles

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rose, Charles Day

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Rowlands, J.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Callum, John M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Crae, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

1190

1191

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Sears, J. E.

Summerbell, T.

Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

Seaverns, J. H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Weir, James Galloway

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whitbread, Howard

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, George (Norfolk)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

Whitehead, Rowland

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wilkie, Alexander

Snowden, P.

Toulmin, George

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Soares, Ernest J.

Verney, F. W.

Williamson, A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York,W. R.)

Stanley,Hn.A Lyulph(Chesh.)

Wadsworth, J.

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

Steadman, W. C.

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wardle, George J.

Tellers for the Noes—

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Waring, Walter

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEYmoved a new clause dealing with Section 81 of the Army Act, his purpose being to allow a recruit who repented of his bargain within three months of enlistment to obtain his discharge on payment of £5 instead of £10. He submitted that£10 was an excessive amount to charge a recruit under the circumstances, seeing that only a very small amount could have been spent on his training. A payment of £5 would be quite sufficient for the purposes of the Government, and more within the means of those who would have to make it.
New Clause (Power to recruit to purchase discharge)—(Viscount Helmsley)—brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid the figure of £10 was fixed some time ago after careful consideration; the system had worked well in practice, and as it was impossible to say what the effect of the change proposed would be in the way of dislocating recruiting, he deprecated the Amendment. It was not desirable to encourage men lightly to withdraw from the obligation into which they had entered.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that no reason whatever had been given to show that £5 would not be sufficient to meet the necessities of the case. If a young man found that he had no vocation to
serve His Majesty in the Army it ought not to be made too difficult for him to withdraw. If men were unwilling they would never make good soldiers, but would give rise to more trouble than was involved in their withdrawal within three months of enlistment.
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked how many recruits in the course of a year purchased their discharge within three months of enlistment. Most men who enlisted had not £10, and it would be practically as difficult for them to raise the smaller sum of £5; therefore the question of encouraging withdrawals from obligations incurred hardly arose.
MR. HALDANEsaid the Committee were under the disadvantage of having to consider clauses which were not on the Paper; hence he had had no opportunity of obtaining such information as that asked for by the hon. Member for Gravesend.
MR. CLAUDE HAYpointed out that the Government had only themselves to thank for having to deal with Amendments without notice. It was not until 4 o'clock on the previous afternoon that Members had the opportunity of ascertaining the right hon. Gentleman's own views on the Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 309. (Division List No. 87).

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Ashley, W. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Bowerman, C. W.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fletcher, J. S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Middlemore,John Throgmorton

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Clynes, J. R.

Hill,Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorgeD.

Collings, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm'ng'm

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Starkey, John R.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Courthope, G, Loyd

Hudson, Walter

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Hunt, Rowland

Thorne, William

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Jowett, F. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Gov'n

Liddell, Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Tellers for the Ayes—

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Viscount Helmsley and Mr. Lonsdale.

Fell, Arthur

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Magnus, Sir Philip

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Essex, R. W.

Agnew, George William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Chance, Frederick William

Ferens, T. R.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Armitage, R.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ffrench, Peter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Findlay, Alexander

Astbury, John Meir

Clancy, John Joseph

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Atherley-Jones, L.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cleland, J. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Clough, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Gill, A. H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ginnell, L.

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Barker, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Grant, Corrie

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cooper, G. J.

Greenwood, Hamar(York)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Corbett,C.H.(SussexE.Grinst'd

Gulland, John W.

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Cory, Clifford John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Beale, W. P.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Beauchamp, E.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Beck, A. Cecil

Crean, Eugene

Halpin, J.

Bell, Richard

Cremer, William Randal

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crombie, John William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Crooks, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Hart-Davies, T.

Bennett, E. N.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Berridge, T. H. L.

Dalziel, James Henry

Harvey, WE(Derbyshire. N. E

Bertram, Julius

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harwood, George

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Billson, Alfred

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hayden, John Patrick

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, W, Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Boland, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Henry, Charles S.

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brigg, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Higham, John Sharp

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Hobart, Sir Robert

Brodie, H. C.

Dillon, John

Hodge, John

Bryce, J. Annan

Duckworth, James

Hogan, Michael

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hooper, A. G.

Burke, H. Haviland-

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Elibank, Master of

Hyde, Clarendon

Idris, T. H. W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shackleton, David James

Jackson, R. S.

Murphy, John

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Jacoby, Sr James Alfred

Murray, James

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

Jenkins, J.

Napier,T. B.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Jones, Sir D. B. (Swansea)

Nolan,Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Kearley, Hudson E.

Nuttall, Harry

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.

Snowden, P.

Kelley, George D.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Dowd, John

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Steadman, W. C.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Malley, William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Mara, James

Straus, B.S. (Mile End)

Lambert, George

O'Shee, James John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lamont, Norman

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras, E.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Summerbell, T.

Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

Paul, Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Philipps,Owen C.(Pembroke)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lockwood, Rt. HnLt-Col. A. R.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Long, Rt. Hn.Walter(Dublin,S

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Lough, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tomkinson, James

Lundon, W.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Price, Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Toulmin, George

Maclean, Donald

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Radford, G. H.

Verney, F. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Vivian, Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wadsworth, J.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

M'Callum, John M.

Rees, J. D.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Crae, George

Rendall, Athelstan

Wardle, George J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Richardson, A.

Waring, Walter

M'Kean, John

Rickett, J. Compton

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

M'Micking, Major G.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

Weir, James Galloway

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Whitbread, Howard

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

White, George (Norfolk)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robinson, S.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Robson,Sir William Snowdon

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Marnham, F. J.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Whitehead, Rowland

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Meehan, Patrick A.

Rowlands, J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Runciman, Walter

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Williamson, A.

Montagu, E. S.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilton, Henry J. (York, W.R)

Mooney, J. J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Wood,T. M'Kinnon

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Sears, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Morrell, Philip

Seaverns, J. H.

Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Morse, L. L.

Seely, Major J. B.

Schedule 1:—
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to raise a point of order of considerable constitutional importance. By the First Schedule of the Army Act of last year the total amount payable per day to a soldier was 5s. 8d. That could be Verified by any hon. Member who cared to obtain the "Act of last year and add up the schedule. If, however,
1196
they added up the schedule proposed to her incorporated in the present Bill they would find that the amount came to 6s. 3d. per head. He did not raise any objection to the extra 7d. as far as it went, but he wished to point out that it would amount on the whole to a very considerable expenditure. It had been laid down by Sir Arsine May that whenever a measure was submitted to the House the object of which was to

1197
increase the drain upon the public funds, it was necessary before the Bill could be read a second time that Resolutions should be submitted, such Resolutions to be recommended by His Majesty's Government—by the Crown—and submitted to, and approved of by Committee of the House. The same practice went a step further and dealt distinctly with cases where Bills were brought forward which had not got for their object a drain upon the public funds, but which proposed in a small way to create an increased charge. He contended that the Bill, having as it had the material object of increasing the cost per head by 7d., made a distinct additional charge upon the public funds. The consideration of the schedule was the proper place to consider the point he had raised. They could not, he contended, proceed with this particular part of the Committee's work; it must be postponed and a Resolution brought forward and considered by the Whole House, in accordance with Parliamentary practice, before they could proceed to deal with the schedule.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member should have raised his point upon consideration of Clause 3 of the Bill, but he would decide the matter apart from that and upon its own grounds. In his opinion the schedule did not make any definite charge, but only allowed payments to be made out of moneys provided in the Estimates if accommodation were provided. Again, the schedule had been increased in like manner on previous Bills, and, therefore, a precedent had already been established for the increase proposed under the schedule of the present Bill. There had never been any financial Resolution preparatory to the Bill.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that when Clause 3 was before the House he was called on to move his Amendment embodying the point he had just raised, but he was closured before he had said six words.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 8, at beginning to insert the word 'hot.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 24, after the word 'breakfast' to insert the word 'hot.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3:—
MR. CLAUDE HAYmoved to omit from line 23, the words "or in a public prison.' "He said he had brought forward this Amendment in order that the Secretary of State for War might give some information as to what the arrangements were to prevent soldiers being committed to local prisons if, after they had served their sentence, they were going to rejoin the Army. It would be within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman and those hon. Members who were in the last Parliament that this subject was then much debated, and that considerable feeling was aroused in the matter. It was found that owing to an insufficiency of accommodation in the military prisons throughout the country, military prisoners had to be sent into civil prisons. He held very strongly that if a soldier was committed for a substantial period to a civil prison such punishment rendered him unfit to rejoin the Army.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 33, to leave out the words 'or in a public prison.' "—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
MR. HALDANE: replied that if a soldier were sentenced for an offence which caused him to be sent to a civil prison and the case was a serious one, he was discharged from the Army. That was done not by any Act of Parliament but by virtue of an executive authority which military authorities possessed. Therefore, the power being an executive one the provisions of the Act were put in general terms.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: thought it was much to be regretted that the right

1199
hon. Gentleman had not informed the Committee what the principle was in regard to soldiers who had been put into civil prisons and returned to the Army after the expiration of their sentences; for what offences soldiers were sent by the military authorities to civil prisons. If the right hon. Gentleman could promise that the matter would be seriously
tackled and provision made to remove such a stain from the Army he would withdraw his Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 325; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 88.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Halpin, J.

Agnew, George William

Clough, William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, J. R.

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Ambrose, Robert

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Armitage, R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cooper, G. J.

Hervey,W.E. (Derbyshire, N.E.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

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

Harwood, George

Astbury, John Meir

Cory, Clifford John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hayden, John Patrick

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crean, Eugene

Healy, Timothy Michael

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cremer, William Randal

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barker, John

Crombie, John William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Barnard, E. B.

Crosfield, A. H.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dalziel, James Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hodge, John

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hogan, Michael

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hooper, A. G.

Beck, A. Cecil

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bell, Richard

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras,

Hudson, Walter

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Benn, W. (T'wr'Hamlets,S.Geo.

Dillon, John

Hyde, Clarendon

Bennett, E. N.

Duckworth, James

Idris, T. H. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jackson, R. S.

Bertram, Julius

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jenkins, J.

Billson, Alfred

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

Boland, John

Elibank, Master of

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Brigg, John

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Kekewich, Sir George

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Kelley, George D.

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kilbride, Denis

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ffrench, Peter

Laidlaw, Robert

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Findlay, Alexander

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont, Norman

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, A. H.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ginnell, L.

Lehmann, R. C.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Chance, Frederick William

Gooch, George Peabody

Lewis, John Herbert

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lough, Thomas

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gulland, John W.

Lundon, W.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes.

Clancy, John Joseph

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Maclean, Donald

Paul, Herbert

Soares, Ernest J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Macpherson, J. T.

Perks, Robert William

Steadman, W. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

M'Callum, John M.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Crae, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Summerbell, T.

M'Kean, John

Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk,E.)

Sutherland, J. E.

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

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

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

Radford, G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

M'Micking, Major G.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mallet, Charles E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Rees, J. D.

Thorne, William

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

Rendall, Athelstan

Tillett, Louis John

Marnham, F. J.

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

Tomkinson, James

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Richardson, A.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Massie, J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Toulmin, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Verney, F. W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Vivian, Henry

Menzies, Walter

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Wadsworth, J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robinson, S.

Wardle, George J.

Montagu, E. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Waring, Walter

Mooney, J. J.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waterlow, D. S.

Morrell, Philip

Roe, Charles Day

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Morse, L. L.

Rowlands, J.

Weir, James Galloway

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Runciman, Walter

Whitbread, Howard

Murphy, John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, George (Norfolk)

Murray, James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Napier, T. B.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sears, J. E.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Nuttall, Harry

Seely, Major J. B.

Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Shackleton, David James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

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

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

O'Dowd, John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Tellers for the Ayes—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

O'Mara, James

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

O'Shee, James John

Snowden, P.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

NOES.

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Forster, Henry William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn.HughO.

Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Ashley, W. W.

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury S.E'm'ds

Balcarres, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Hills, J. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Craig,Captain James (Down,E.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Craik, Sir Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dalrymple, Viscount

King,Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Gov'n

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Faber, George Denison (York)

Liddell, Henry

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Fell, Arthur

Long,Col.Charles W. (Evesham

Carlile, E. Hildred

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fletcher, J. S.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Magnus, Sir Philip

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Valentia, Viscount

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Tellers for the Noes—

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Mr. Claude Hay and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Thornton, Percy M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise to move the adjournment of the House. In doing so I would say that the House will meet on Saturday for the purpose of getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. I have another announcement to make, which I hope the House will allow me to make, upon this occasion. It is with reference to the Channel Tunnel Bill. A noble friend of mine, some time ago, said he would ask a Question in another place as to the policy of the Government in the matter. This question has been fixed for to-day. Yesterday the hon. Member for the Limehouse Division of Tower Hamlets had a Question upon the Paper to the same effect. I will now inform the House the course the Government intend to pursue in regard to the Channel Tunnel Bill. I asked my hon. friend to postpone his Question until to-day in order that the information might be given in the two Houses at the same time. Events, however, have occurred to-day which put Questions out of the question. I have thought it would not be respectful to the House if any information on this subject were given in one House and not in the other. Therefore, if the House will allow me, I will give the Answer:—"His Majesty's Government fully recognise the deep concern felt in this matter, and have no other desire than to take the House fully into their confidence, even in anticipation of the early stages of the Bill. Briefly I may say that our view of the public interest leads us to be opposed to this project of a tunnel. Even supposing the military dangers involved were to be amply guarded against, there would exist throughout the country a feeling of insecurity which might lead to
a constant demand for increased expenditure, naval and military, and a continual risk of unrest and possibly alarm, which, however unfounded, would be most injurious in its effect, whether political or commercial. On the other hand, there has not been disclosed any such prospect of advantage to the trade and industries of the country as would compensate for those evils. As to the personal convenience of passengers and the transit of light articles, it seems well that further consideration should be given to other means of conveyance, such as are used in the ferries across great channels of the sea in other parts of the world. These considerations lead us, while rejoicing in anything that facilitates free communication with our neighbours, to view this project with disfavour."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As regards the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement I do not need discuss it. I may, however, be permitted to express, on my own behalf and on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, great satisfaction at the declaration of policy which His Majesty's Government have just made. As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, which deals with more immediate affairs, I understand that he will put down a Motion to be taken at 12 o'clock to-morrow with regard to the Saturday sitting, and that if a Saturday sitting is agreed to by the House, the proposal is to get the Speaker out of the Chair and to take no further business.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes before Six o'clock on Thursday afternoon.