Commons Sitting of 29 May 1907

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

NEW WRITS.
New Writs, for County of Rutland, in the room of the right hon. George Henry Finch, deceased.
County of Middlesex (Hornsey Division) Captain Charles Barrington Balfour (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  1609
  Petitions for Private Bills; That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—Alton Military Hospital Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Great Central Railway Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  Armagh Urban District Council Bill. As amended, considered. To be read the third time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to—Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship Canal (Bridgewater Canal) Bill [Lords]; West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Richard Harrison for an invention for improvements in or connected with elastic wheels applicable to motor and other vehicles." [Harrison's Patent Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, to issue Insurance Coupons; and for other purposes." [General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited by the Heywood and Middleton Water Board Act, 1901, for the construction of waterworks, to confer further powers upon the Heywood and Middleton Water Board with respect to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." [Hey wood and Middle-ton Water Board Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Pontypridd Urban District Council in regard to
  1610
  the appropriation and use of lands, to make further provision in regard to their gas undertaking; and for other purposes." [Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the North British Railway Company to construct a new dock, a railway, and other work sat Methil, to confer further powers on the North British Railway Company with reference to their undertaking and upon that company, the Caledonian Railway Company, and the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company with reference to undertakings in which those companies are interested, to authorize the Burntisland Harbour Commissioners to lease lands for graving dock; and for other purposes." [North British Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Coventry in relation to their water undertaking; to authorise the supply to them of water by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Birmingham; to extend the area of supply under the Coventry Electric Lighting Order, 1891; and for other purposes." [Coventry Corporation Water Bill [Lords], now Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers upon the Midland Railway Company and upon that Company and the Great Western Railway Company and upon the South Yorkshire Joint Line Committee and upon the Cheshire Lines Committee for the construction of works and the acquisition of lands; to make provision for transferring the Limavady and Dungiven Railway to the Midland Railway Company and to confer powers upon that Company and the Great Central and Hull and Barnsley Railway Companies with respect to certain authorised railways of the Great Central and Hull and Barnsley Railway Companies; and for other purposes." [Midland Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Harrison's Patent Bill [Lords]; General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, Bill [Lords]; Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [Lords]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; North British Railway Bill

  1611
  [Lords]; Coventry Corporation Water Bill [Lords], now Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords]; Midland Railway Bill [Lords]; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Muswell Hill, for protection of the Native Races; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Forres; Leith; and, Stornaway; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Royton; Stratford-on-Avon; and, Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Three Petitions from Chepping Wycombe, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Hampstead; London; and, Paisley; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Cramlington; Hitcham; Norwich; Plympton; and Shireoaks; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Keighley, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Leicester, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Tooting, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, &c, granted within the year ended 5th January,1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION RULES.
  Copy presented, of Rules in lieu of Rules 6 (3) and 7 (2) of the Elementary Schools Teachers' Superannuation Rules, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Proceedings of the Colonial Conference, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Papers laid before the Colonial Conference, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.
  Order [15th May] for presenting an Address for a Return relative thereto, read, and discharged; and instead thereof:—East India (Plague),—Address for "Return of the Memorandum of the Royal College of Physicians, in July, 1905, on Plague."— (Dr. Rutherford.)
  ENGLISH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (POWERS IN IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving the names of Government Departments or Authorities in England which now exercise powers in or in relation to Ireland, either directly or indirectly."—(Captain Craig.)

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in Scotland have allocated and applied funds to the purposes of Technical Education during the year ending the 15th day of May, 1907, under the following Acts: The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890; The

  1613
  Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; The Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; The Technical Instruction Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892; and Public Libraries Acts."—(Mr. Sinclair.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Maintenance of Roads altered in Connection with Railways.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is within the province of the Local Government Board, or of any auditor or inspector of that Board, to ascertain whether local road authorities receive the full amounts due to them from railway companies for the maintenance of all the portions of roads altered in connection with the railways; have those amounts been revised or their accuracy tested since the introduction of local government; and will the Board assist any local road authority so desiring to test" and revise these amounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There is no constant rule as to the liability of railway companies for the maintenance of portions of roads affected by the construction of railways, such liabilities, where they exist, being generally prescribed in the private Acts of the companies concerned. The auditors of the Local Government Board are, consequently, to a large extent dependent on the information supplied to them by the local authorities and their officers, on whom devolves the responsibility of obtaining from the companies their proper contributions. It is, however, the practice of the auditors to secure, so far as the facts within their knowledge enable them to do so, that all moneys receivable by the local authorities are duly recovered and brought into account. The auditors have drawn attention to such cases on various occasions both before and since the passing of the Local Government Act.

  Post Office Estimates—Depreciation of Buildings, etc.
  MR.WALROND: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any allowance is made in the
  1614
  annual Post Office Estimates for depreciation in the value of the buildings and properties belonging to the Post Office, and interest on and redemption of loans spent on capital account; and if he can state what these would amount to at the usual rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No allowance is made in the annual Post Office Estimates for depreciation in the value of Post Office buildings and properties. The expense both of erection and maintenance is borne on the Vote for Revenue Buildings, etc., Class 1, Votes 8 and 14. At the present time the only expenditure of the Post Office out of loan capital is that for the telephone system, which is repaid under Sub-head" R 7 of the Post Office Vote. The sum voted under that sub-head includes interest on as well as repayment of capital, as shown in House of Commons Paper No. 369, of last session.

  Close Time for Salmon in the Blackwater.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of riparian owners and anglers held at Kanturk on 25th March last, in which attention was called to the decline in the quantity of salmon in the upper reaches of the Blackwater, and suggesting that the weekly close time should be extended to cover from 6 o'clock a.m. on Friday to 6 o'clock a.m. on Monday, and the annual close season from 1st October to 1st March; and whether, in view of the decline of this industry, the Department of Agriculture will order their fishery inspectors to hold an inquiry at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The attention of the Department of Agriculture has not been directed to the resolution referred to. The only complaint relating to a shortage of fish in the river Black-water has come from an English gentleman who rented a fishing at Kanturk and found it unsatisfactory; and the Department do not think that this would justify the holding of a public inquiry. The changes of weekly and annual close times suggested cannot be dealt with without legislation.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of John O'Regan.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the case of John O'Regan, an evicted tenant, Carrignavar, Cork County, has been brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners; if any inquiry has been made into the circumstances; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the application for reinstatement lodged by John O'Regan, and will consider his case in connection with a scheme for the distribution of untenanted land on an

  Name of Borough.

  Year.

  Deaths of Infants.

  Number.

  Per thousand births.

  Battersea

  1900

  826

  157

  1901

  828

  164

  1902

  654

  135

  1903

  688

  138

  1904

  706

  146

  1905

  550

  114

  1906

  588

  126

  Lambeth

  1900

  1,350

  147

  1901

  1,294

  142

  1902

  1,215

  134

  1903

  1,194

  132

  1904

  1,328

  147

  1905

  1,127

  128

  1906

  1,086

  131

  Woolwich

  1900

  469

  142

  1901

  455

  128

  1902

  462

  124

  estate for which negotiations for purchase by the Commissioners are pending.

  Infant Mortality.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the figures of infant mortality for each year since 1900 in the boroughs of Battersea, Lambeth, Woolwich, Bradford, Burnley, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Dukinfield, and since 1897 for the boroughs of Liverpool and St. Helens.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The following table gives the particulars desired:—

  Name of Borough,

  Year.

  Deaths of Infants.

  Number.

  Per thousand births.

  Woolwich—continued.

  1903

  390

  106

  1904

  466

  132

  1905

  364

  103

  1900

  388

  109

  Bradford

  1900

  945

  141

  1901

  1,085

  168

  1902

  911

  139

  1903

  974

  148

  1904

  1,048

  1(57

  1905

  873

  144

  1906

  904

  152

  Burnley

  1900

  611

  209

  1901

  609

  207

  1902

  511

  176

  1903

  586

  216

  1904

  625

  233

  1905

  465

  174

  1906

  612

  215

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  1900

  225

  182

  1901

  201

  182

  1902

  179

  146

  1903

  238

  205

  1904

  207

  172

  1905

  212

  179

  1906

  183

  153

  Name of Borough.

  Year.

  Deaths of Infants.

  Number.

  Per thousand births.

  Dukinfield

  1900

  138

  238

  1901

  135

  275

  1902

  100

  182

  1903

  103

  188

  1904

  96

  198

  1905

  91

  196

  1906

  91

  176

  Liverpool

  1897

  4,488

  201

  1898

  4,111

  184

  1899

  4,481

  199

  1900

  4,247

  186

  1901

  4,138

  188

  1902

  3,936

  162

  1903

  3,815

  159

  1904

  4,780

  196

  1905

  3,762

  154

  1906

  4,145

  172

  St. Helens

  1897

  578

  181

  1898

  566

  172

  1899

  492

  157

  1900

  584

  188

  1901

  550

  175

  1902

  541

  167

  1903

  475

  138

  1904

  578

  174

  1905

  430

  132

  1906

  489

  158

  Visit of Lords of the Admiralty to Portsmouth Dockyard.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state when their Lordships will visit Portsmouth Dockyard to hear the petitions of the workmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The visit will take place some time this summer, but the pressure of public business makes it impossible to fix a date long in advance.

  Pay of Civil Service Pensions to Residents Abroad.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what are the Treasury regulations respecting payment of pension to a superannuated Civil Servant who leaves this country for residence abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Persons in receipt of pensions from the Vote for Superannuation, etc., who emigrate to the Colonies are paid in the following ways:—1. By moans of forms payable at the Paymaster General's office, which are negotiable through any bank at home or abroad. 2. By means of powers of attorney. 3. By the officer in charge of the Treasury Chest, when there is a Treasury Chest station in the Colony. 4. Through the Colonial Treasurers of the self-governing Colonies, or other officer appointed by the Colony, where no Imperial paying officer is stationed, a charge of three per cent, being made by the Colonial authorities, which is borne by the pensioner.

  Berkhamsted Grammar School.
  MR. WALROND: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is aware that the Board of Education, by a scheme as to Berkhamsted Grammar School,
  1622
  sealed on 13th May, 1907, withdrew from the residents of Berkhamsted the rights reserved to them by the scheme of 8th January, 1903, and even withdrew from the ratepayers who have resided for seven years in Berkhamsted or North-church the rights expressly preserved to them by the draft scheme as published by the Board in December, 1905, without any notice of such alteration of the draft; and whether, seeing that the effect of such alteration is to deprive the inhabitants of the last remnant of that right to free education which, for over 300 years, formed a fundamental part of the constitution of this school, and that the Board claim the right to make such an alteration without notice, as if it were a mere modification of the draft, and without communicating the alteration proposed to the councils of the rural parishes affected, he will give his sanction to an appeal to the Court of Chancery, under Section 8 of The Charitable Trusts Act, 1860, from the said Order of 13th March, 1907, in order that the Court may grant such relief as the case may require.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) I have no information as to the terms of the scheme or the circumstances in which it has been settled or published. If an application, complying with the usual practice, is made to me for my authority to appeal, I will consider the application and deal with it.

  Land Revenue of India.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the total amount of the land revenue for the whole of India, excluding Upper Burmah, in the years 1856, 1875, 1895, and 1905; and if he will also state the total land revenue of the Madras Presidency, the Bombay Presidency, the Central Provinces the North Western Provinces, arid the Punjab for the same years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Motley.)

  Land Revenue, Gross Receipts.

  1855–6.

  1875–6.

  1895–6.

  1905–6.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  India (excluding Burma)

  11,089,558

  13,786,725

  15,810,634

  16,309,866

  Madras

  2,428,167

  3,030,009

  3,339,706

  3,521,140

  Bombay (including Sindh and Satara)

  1,897,149

  2,460,236

  3,251,209

  2,816,228

  North Western Provinces and Oudh (latterly United Provinces of Agra and Oudh)

  3,474,237

  3,768,784

  4,011,296

  3,926,014

  Punjab

  630,229

  l,334,078†

  1,597,800

  1,004,609‡

  Central Provinces

  280,965

  405,257

  511,555

  572,462§

  *Entered in the Accounts for 1855–6 as the Nagpore Territory.

  †Including the Delhi Territory, which was transferred from the North Western Provinces to the Punjab in 1858.

  ‡Including the North West Frontier Province.

  §Excluding Berar.

  NOTE.—The Accounts do not distinguish the figures of the revenue in Upper Burma. The land revenue for the whole Province of Burma has therefore been excluded from the totals given. The figures are expressed in pounds sterling, and represent the total land revenue collected in rupees and converted at the rate of fifteen rupees to £1.

  Army Expenditure in India.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the total expenditure on the Army in India in 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The desired particulars are as follows:—

  £

  1870–71

  11,917,000

  1880–81

  16,996,000

  1890–91

  14,914,000

  1900–01

  15,020,000

  1906–07 (revised estimate)

  19,934,000

  Land Revenue of Rawal Pindi District.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the land revenue of the Rawal Pindi district of the Punjab in 1861, 1881, 1901, and according to the new settlement just concluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The first regular settlement was not made until 1865. Before that date varying annual settlements were in force. The first year for which figures are available is 1864. It is accordingly shown in the statement below. The assessment made in the regular settlement of 1865 was in force until 1884. The assessment of the second regular settlement continued till 1904—

  1864. Summary Settlement.

  1881. First Regular Settlement.

  1901. Second Regular Settlement.

  New Settlement.

  £29,800

  £27,500

  £36,400

  £45,000

  The figures throughout are for the district as now constituted. Rupees have been converted in sterling at the rate of fifteen to £1.

  Net Revenue from Irrigation in India.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the total net revenue derived from irrigation in India, after paying all charges of maintenance, in 1881–2,

  1881–2.

  1901–2.

  1906–7. (Revised Estimate.)

  £

  £

  £

  Major works:

  Receipts, including portion of land revenue credited to irrigation

  899,000

  2,373,000

  3,344,000

  Working expenses and maintenance

  304,000

  702,000

  950,000

  Interest

  534,000

  944,000

  1,078,000

  Net revenue

  61,000

  727,000

  1,316,000

  Minor works and navigation:

  Receipts

  87,000

  165,000

  187,000

  Charges

  527,000

  719,000

  905,000

  Net expenditure

  440,000

  554,000

  718,000

  1881–2. Net Expenditure.

  1901–2. Net Revenue.

  1906–7. Net Revenue.

  £

  £

  £

  Net result

  379,000

  173,000

  598,000

  The capital outlay on irrigation works to the 31st March, 1906, was £31,429,000.

  1901–2, and in 1906–7; and what was the total capital invested in irrigation works in 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The revenue derived from irrigation, as shown in the accounts of the Government of India, the charges for working expenses and maintenance and for interest, and the net result for the three years mentioned, are given in the following statement:—

  Pay and Allowances of Military Officers in Bombay Political Service.
  SIR SEYMOURKING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return showing the present pay and allowances of military officers in the Bombay Political Service as compared with the pay and allowances of military officers of the same length of service in the general cadre of the Indian Political Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The information is already to be found in the Bombay Civil List and the Quarterly Civil List of the Foreign Department, both of which are published. But I have no objection to giving a Return. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me as to the form it should take.

  Pay of Woolwich Arsenal Labourers.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Arsenal labourers who have been put on short time, owing to the suspension of work on Saturdays, are being paid less than the minimum weekly wage of 23s. laid down in the Ordnance Factory rules; and, if so, will it be possible, in consideration of the hardships thereby entailed, to grant them the recognised minimum.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Woolwich on the 16th instant.†

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Kilcreggan Fort, Dumbartonshire.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date the land for the fort at Kilcreggan, Dumbartonshire, was purchased; from whom it was bought; the rental derived from the land prior to purchase; the acreage and gross amount paid for it; the conditions of sale as to minerals; and whether the Government were permitted to quarry for stone for the works without any further payment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 1091.
  1628
  purchase of the land referred to was concluded in October, 1901; it was bought from the Duke of Argyll; the rental previously derived is not known but its prospective value for building affected its cost; its extent is about fifty-two acres of foreshore; the price was £14,500 which included the Duke's rights to minerals and building stone.

  Soldiers' Pensions.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there are many aged soldiers of excellent character and good record in extreme poverty; and if he will consider the desirability of granting such ancient servants of the Crown, when not in the workhouse, a pension after sixty-five, even if they are not in possession of a medal.
  MR. HALDANE: The grant of pensions to old soldiers merely on the ground of age and circumstances and without regard to service would involve a large expenditure, and a wholly new principle. There are other classes in the community not less interested in the question than soldiers.
  MR. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Patriotic Fund Commission and ascertain if they have not large resources which may be available for this purpose?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Territorial Army Officers and Commissions in the Regular Army.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Territorial Army will be allowed the same privilege of competing for commissions in the Regular Army that is now extended to officers of the Milita.
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer is in the affirmative, subject to conditions similar to those at present applicable to candidates from the Militia and Yeomanry.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked what proportion of officers would have this privilege.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he must have notice of that Question.

  Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will refer the Statement of Requirements, Cd. Paper 3370, to the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. HALDANE: The Paper in question contains suggestions and explanations with regard to the proposed financial arrangements of the Territorial Forces Bill at present under consideration of the House. It would not, therefore, appear to be a Paper which should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Will it, before being finally approved, be submitted to the Committee?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think that is the usual practice.

  Indian Cantonment Act.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will suggest to the Government of India the expediency of amending the Cantonment Act of 1899, so as to admit of private house property within cantonments being placed under the control of civil officers.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The existence of the troops being the object of the cantonment, it is essential that the military authority should have complete control over the general arrangements, and not least over all house property within the cantonment area. The powers given to the magistrate who represents the civil power provide sufficiently for its intervention when necessary, and I am not prepared to suggest the amendment of the Cantonment Act of 1899 in the manner suggested.

  Cutch Railway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence with the Government of India in regard to the proposed construction of a
  1630
  railway through the territory of the Rao of Cutch.
  MR. MORLEY: There is no recent correspondence with the Government of India on the subject of the construction of a railway through the territory of the Rao of Cutch, or by the alternative route of which a reconnaissance was undertaken last year. When a despatch has been received from the Government of India, and has been dealt with, I will consider whether the correspondence can be laid upon the Table of the House.

  Lucknow Cantonment Magistrates.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will take such stops as may be necessary to debar cantonment magistrates at Lucknow from trying cases instituted in their capacity as secretaries of cantonment committees.
  MR. MORLEY: The organisation of cantonments in India places the executive authority in the hands of a cantonment magistrate, who is also secretary to a cantonment committee of which the commanding officer of the cantonment is the chairman. There is no possibility as the law stands of transferring the hearing of cases within cantonments to other officers than cantonment magistrates, nor would such a transfer be consistent with the system of prompt and strict military administration which necessarily prevails in an area occupied by troops.

  Punjab Land Colonisation Bill.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Punjab Land Colonisation Bill as originally presented to the Punjab Legislative Council, and of the Act as finally, passed, together with the official Reports of the debates in Council relating thereto.
  MR. MORLEY: I have not yet received from India the Bill as finally passed. But I shall be happy to lay on the Table the Bill as introduced, the Select Committee's Report and Amended Bill, and the report of the debates in the Council, if the hon. Member will move for them.

  British-Indian Subjects in German Colonies.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the recent proceedings of the German Colonial Society at Worms, and to the resolution passed thereat, which threatens British-Indian subjects of His Majesty, resident in German colonies, with differential legislation, and to the remarks of the Reichstag Deputy Heir Arnim to the effect that the Boers had passed sharp laws against the Indians and the British had taken them over, and that therefore there was no reason to fear complications with Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government could more effectively remonstrate with Foreign Powers than with our own people in the Colonies, he would, if necessary, take steps to protect His Majesty's British-Indian subjects in German Colonies from differential and humiliating legislation such as they are at present subjected to in certain of His Majesty's South African Colonies.
  MR. MORLEY: I have seen a Report of the proceedings referred to. The question of taking steps for the purpose indicated will be considered if the contingency which the hon. Member contemplates should arise.

  Bombay-Sind Railway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that on the 18th July last the Bombay Government stated that they had forwarded to the Government of India a memorial from the Cutchi inhabitants of Bombay relativeto the proposed Bombay-Sind connection railway, will he ascertain why that memorial has not been submitted to him; and will he consider the points set forth in the memorial before a route is definitely adopted.
  MR. MORLEY: The original memorial referred to has not yet been received by me. Under rule a memorial is forwarded with a full statement of facts and an expression of opinion by the Government. I presume that the transmission of this memorial has been delayed pending the consideration by the Government of India of the questions involved. I will inquire and will consider the memorial
  1632
  before finally approving either route. Meanwhile, there is no immediate prospect of the construction of a line.

  Rawal Pindi Public Meeting.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the public meeting of zemindars at Rawal Pindi on the 21st April, for speaking at which three barristers are being prosecuted for sedition, passed resolutions complaining of the increase in the land revenue imposed at the present settlement, and authorising the district association to forward their petition and memorialise the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab for relief against the increased assessment, and complaining that, while the sugar and cotton industries of the country had well-nigh been destroyed by the competition of the well-organised capital and labour of foreign countries and the help given to them by their States in the shape of reduction of freights, the Government had increased the water rate on sugar-cane and cotton 100 per cent, in the tract irrigated by the Beas Doab Canal to the injury of those indigenous industries, which were already dying out; and whether he will issue instructions to prevent the increase of the land tax and the irrigation cess at the same time.
  MR. MORLEY: I understand that one resolution referred to the recent revision of the land assessment in the Rawal Pindi district, and another to the revised water rates for the Bari Doab Canal. The Rawal Pindi district and the districts irrigated by the canal are some 300 miles apart. There was no question of simultaneous enhancement of land revenue and canal rates in the same districts. The increase in the canal rates was proposed as the result of inquiries which showed that the Bari Doab rates were below those of other similar canals, and that considerably higher rates could be paid without difficulty. The sugar-cane rate was increased by 50 per cent, and the cotton rate by 20 per cent. The area under these crops has increased largely and their cultivation is very profitable. The levy of the new rates has been postponed for twelve months, and all representations made by the cultivators regarding them are to be carefully considered.
  *MR. REES: May I ask if it is not the case that the ryots of the Punjab on account of the construction of these works out of public revenues enjoy exceptional prosperity, and whether it is not just that they should contribute proportionately to the relief of the general taxpayer who provided the public revenues in question.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Rawal Pindi Riots.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the riots which took place at Rawal Pindi on 2nd May were due to the Land Colonisation Act; and, if so, whether he will advise the Government of India to suspend the operation of that Act pending a public inquiry.
  MR. MORLEY: My hon. friend will have learned from the newspapers that the Viceroy has withheld his assent from the Colonisation Bill. I may say that his action has my entire approval. I must point out to my hon. friend what may possibly have escaped his attention, that the Rawal Pindi district was not affected by its provisions.

  Lalu Lajpat Rai.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the arrest and deportation of Lalu Lajpat Rai without trial has fired the indignation of His Majesty's subjects in India, he will either bring him to trial or release him, and so help to restore law and order and respect for British justice.
  MR. MORLEY: I am aware that the circumstances mentioned by my hon. friend have been viewed with lively disapproval by some sections of His Majesty's Indian subjects and with lively approval by other sections, and I cannot at all agree with my hon. friend that either the trial or the release of the person detained would by any means help to restore law and order.
  DR. RUTHERFORDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform the House on what charge this gentleman had been arrested and deported without trial.
  MR. MORLEYreplied that under the regulations of 1818, under which he was arrested, the formulation of a charge that could be brought forward and substantiated was not necessary.
  DR. RUTHERFORDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had himself received any evidence justifying this serious undertaking on the part of the Indian Government.
  MR. MORLEYsaid he had not the least desire to evade any of these questions, but it would be far more convenient if his hon. friend would possess himself in patience for only a week, when it would be his duty and satisfaction to explain to the House the whole of this matter.
  MR. O'GRADYsaid he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. Was it not a fact that this gentleman was arrested as a result of speaking at a meeting against the increase of the land and irrigation taxes; whether he considered that to be sedition, and whether it came within the purview of the regulations of 1818?
  MR. MORLEY: My hon. friend calls that a simple Question! To answer it would involve me in complexities which would take at least half an hour.
  MR. LEAasked whether there was any other place under the British flag where these lettres de cachet obtained as they did in India.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Steamship Communication with East Africa.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement was made at the Colonial Conference whereby British lines of steamships may be able satisfactorily to compete with German State-aided lines upon the East Coast of Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Answer is in the negative.
  *MR. REESasked whether any consideration of the subject was contemplated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; the question of British communication between this country and the East Coast of Africa has been and will be most carefully considered.

  The Visit of the Colonial Premiers.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any provision in the Estimates for the cost of entertaining the Colonial Ministers attending the recent Conference; and, if so, on which Vote and under which subhead is such provision shown.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Provision of £6,000 is made in the Estimates for 1907–8, Class II., Vote 6, Colonial Office, Sub-head D, Colonial Conference, "Expenses in connection with the Conference to be hold in London in 1907 with the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies." It is understood that this Vote, which includes all the expenses of the Conference, will be somewhat exceeded.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Are we to understand that the whole cost of the official entertainment of the Colonial Premiers will be charged on the Estimates, and, if so, were not the Colonial Premiers the guests of the nation and not of the Government?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The whole cost of the official entertainment of the Colonial Ministers will be charged on the Estimates. The Colonial Ministers have always hitherto been entertained at the expense of the nation. The right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in sending out the invitation in January, 1897, specially invited them to be "the guests of His Majesty's Government." That invitation was repeated in the same form on a subsequent occasion, and it is perfectly correct. The official description has always been as "the guests of His Majesty's Government."
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government in this particular are representing the nation?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am much surprised to hear a member of the Constitutional Party suggesting that the Ministers of the day, holding office under the Crown,
  1636
  have not a right to speak in the name of the nation.
  MR. MOORE: Is the position this, that the Colonial Premiers have been the guests of the Government, but that their entertainment is to be paid for by the nation?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Report of the Imperial Conference.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the publication of proceedings at the recent Imperial Conference, the discussion relating to publicity of proceedings will be printed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  The Rand Miners' Strike.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any precedent for the employment of Imperial troops in a labour strike in a self-governing Colony; and, if not, what are the circumstances which have led the Governor of the Transvaal to sanction the use of upwards of 800 Imperial troops against the white miners on the Rand.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know of any exact precedent for the intervention of Imperial troops in a labour dispute in a self-governing Colony; but neither can I find any parallel in the history of the British Empire to the conditions which prevail upon the Rand. Of their grave complexity the House is well aware, and His Majesty's Government have been led to the conclusion that no agency short of a free Parliament with a responsible Executive is capable of dealing with them with any prospect of success. Such a Government is now in office, and the Transvaal Parliament will meet on the 14th of June for the full debating of all matters affecting the Colony. Meanwhile the information which has been received from Lord Selborne as to the circumstances in which the employment of the Imperial troops has been resorted to is contained in the following telegram:—"During the strike on the Witwatersrand, Ministers, of course, have adopted attitude perfect

  1637
  impartiality towards employers and employees, but from the first they announced officially their determination to maintain law and order, to prevent violence or intimidation, and to protect property. They have now asked for detachments of His Majesty's forces in support of police, and I have issued necessary orders to General Officer Commanding to send them. I am convinced that this step is absolutely necessary and has not been taken without a full sense of responsibility on the part of my Ministers."
  MR. LEAasked whether the Government would consider the advisability, until the Transvaal Parliament had met, of instructing the High Commissioner that no Imperial troops should be used against the miners, and that any disturbances in connection with the strike should be put down by the local police, the Imperial troops only to be used in the event of an outbreak of the Chinese on the Band?
  MR. CHUKCHILL: It would not be in accordance with the policy of my noble friend to impose any such limitation on the action of the troops lent to the Transvaal Government.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the state of affairs on the Rand?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no further news, but I have reason to believe the trouble is abating.
  MR. WALSHasked for information as to the exact nature of the disturbances that had occurred which needed the use of military against British workers on the Rand, and whether it had not been admitted that the troops were brought in owing to the presence of 50,000 Chinese.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the strike is about?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he had received a telegram stating that a despatch was on its way home embodying a full account of the strike, its origin and course, which had been placed before the
  1638
  High Commissioner by the responsible Minister of Mines in the Transvaal. He had no detailed information of an official character.
  MR. WALSH: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the nature of the social disorder which necessitated the employment of Imperial troops?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have said that a despatch is on its way. I have every confidence in the authorities on the spot and also in the Parliament there that will shortly discuss the subject.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the statement made by the acting Prime Minister of the Transvaal that the troops were asked for owing to the grave dangers feared through the presence of the Chinese.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he had seen the statement, and it appeared to bear out the observation he had made upon it on Monday last, which was received with derision by hon. Members opposite.

  Dinuzulu.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether Dinuzulu, while paying a courtesy visit to bid farewell to the Governor of Natal during the present month, was subjected to an inquisitorial investigation before his Excellency, or other officials, and severely cross-examined with reference to the public charges which, for a long time past, have been permitted to be made against him of complicity in rebellion and murder; whether His Majesty's Government acquiesced in this trial of a loyal chief without the legal formulation of any charge, and gave authority to the representative of His Majesty in Natal to be party to this trial; whether His Excellency or the Natal Government propose to publish any report of the trial; and whether His Majesty's Government, in the interests of racial peace in Natal, will now take steps to protect Dinuzulu from newspaper charges, provocative of public disturbance, that he is disloyal to the British Sovereignty.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Dinuzulu has, I understand, had a series of interviews with the Governor of Natal, but I am not aware that anything in the nature of a trial has taken place. It is not in the power of His Majesty's Government to control Press comments, and Dinuzulu must take his chance with the rest.

  The Hague Conference—Delegates' Powers.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what powers, if any, are given to British delegates to The Hague Conference to bind this country to limit its naval and military forces.
  MR. CHURCHILL (for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend can only repeat the Answer already given to a similar Question on the 13th and 20th March. Any Convention which the delegates sign will be subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government and the subsequent ratification of the Sovereign.

  Shanghai Opium Traffic.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British firms at Shanghai interested in the opium traffic have made any representations to the Foreign Office regarding the action taken or to be taken in connection with the anti-opium edict of the Chinese Government; and, if so, whether he will inform the House what reply such firms have received.
  MR. CHURCHILL: An inquiry was some time ago addressed to His Majesty's Consul General at Shanghai by dealers in Indian opium at that port as to what action His Majesty's Government proposed to take in regard to the anti-opium proposals of the Chinese Government. Last month a reply was sent through His Majesty's Minister at Peking, that it was not possible at the present stage of the question to state the action which His Majesty's Government might eventually take on the proposals of the Chinese Government for restricting the importation of foreign opium; but that the request of the dealers to be made acquainted at the earliest possible date with the measures decided upon would be borne in mind. The memorialists were further informed that the summary of the
  1640
  Chinese Government's proposals, communicated to the Press from Peking, made it clear that a gradual restriction of the trade in the course of a term of years was contemplated.
  MR. REES: I would ask whether the anti-opium edict is one of the ordinary official edicts of the Chinese Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to say.

  British Subjects in the Congo Free State.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state approximately the number of British subjects, white and coloured, residing in the Congo Free State.
  MR. CHURCHILL: We have no official data of our own on this point, but in the "Bulletin Officiel" of the Congo Government for the year 1906 we find that the total number of British subjects, though no distinction is made between white and coloured, is given as 139.

  British Consular Staff in the Upper Congo.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what independent means of communication, if any, is enjoyed by the British consular staff in the Upper Congo.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Vice-consuls at Leopoldville and Stanleyville have not any special means of communication. Should it prove necessary to provide such, the question of providing it will be considered.

  Metropolitan Police—Sunday Duty.
  MR. COURTHOPE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to increase the Metropolitan police force; and, if so, whether he will, in making the increase, consider the general wish that each man of the force should have one day's complete rest in every seven days.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have no intention

  1641
  of proposing any increase in the Metropolitan police force beyond the ordinary increase rendered necessary by the growth of population.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give details of the estimate of £150,000 which he said it would cost to give the police one complete day's rest in seven?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the information if he desires it.
  MR. THOENE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities in charge of the police give one day's rest in seven?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think there is only one case, at Reading.

  National Physique.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any statistics to show that the national physique has bettered or deteriorated during the last ten years, in addition to the findings of the Departmental Committee recently issued.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of the existence of any general official statistics on this subject. I think the deficiency is to be regretted.

  Foreign Lottery Circulars.
  MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that a printer in Clerkenwell was fined £25 last week for distributing circulars in aid of a foreign lottery, and that circulars are now being distributed by post in London of a lottery in aid of a Roman Catholic church in Dublin, any steps will be taken to stop this distribution through the post.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that as these circulars were posted in closed envelopes the Post Office cannot take any action. I have, of course, no jurisdiction with regard to Irish lotteries.

  Newbury Railway Station.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great
  1642
  Western Railway station at Newbury is, on the down side, in some places not more than six feet wide and nowhere more than fourteen feet wide, and that express trains pass through it every day at from sixty to sixty-seven miles an hour; whether the station was built upwards of fifty years ago and is quite unfitted for the traffic and the trains which now pass through it, and that its continuance in its present condition is attended with danger to life and property; and whether he will inquire why the decision come to by the board of the company more than two years ago to build a new station has never been carried out.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George,): The Board of Trade have again been in communication with the Railway Company in this matter, and have received a reply as follows:—
  "Great Western Railway,
  "General Manager's Office,
  93348W. "Paddington Station,
  "London, W.
  "28th May, 1907.
  "SIR,
  "I am in receipt of your letter of to-day's date covering copy of a Notice of a further Question which Mr. Mackarness proposes to ask the President of the Board of Trade in the House of Commons to-morrow (Wednesday) relative to the Newbury station, and in reply do not find it possible to make any material addition to what was contained in my communication of 22nd March.
  "The major portion of the platform is, as stated, approximately fourteen feet wide, but there is one spot—opposite the steps of the footbridge—where the space is necessarily reduced to about six feet. The Company is not, however, aware of any justification for the statement that the existing arrangements are 'attended with danger to life and property.'
  "As was stated in my letter of 22nd March, the re-construction of the station will be taken in hand as soon as the Company is in possession of the necessary land.
  "I am, etc.,
  "(Sd.) JAMES C. INGLIS
  "The Assistant Secretary,
  "(Railway Department)
  "Board of Trade."

  Port of London.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in view of the effect the declaration may have in saving naval expenditure on docks on the East Coast, whether he can indicate if the proposed legislation for the port of London next year will include a proposal for a dock capable of being used by the largest vessels such as a private dock company has power to construct at the present moment; and whether there is any reason to believe that the company in question are abstaining from exercising the powers conferred on them by Act of Parliament because of the uncertainty about future legislation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. friend will readily understand that I am not in a position at present to make a statement as to the provisions which will be contained in the Bill which I hope to introduce next year, but one of its aims will be to improve the accommodation in the port of London. As regards the latter part of the Question I am not able to express an opinion.

  Oban Post Office.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a site has yet been obtained at Oban for the erection of a new post office; and when the building will be proceeded with.
  THE POST MASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): A site has now been found for the erection of a new post office at Oban, and the necessary steps are being taken for the completion of the purchase. It is hoped that a commencement may be made with the building at the beginning of next financial year.

  Salterhebble Church of England School.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board on 1st May decided to discontinue the grant to Salterhebble Church of England school at the close of this month; on what grounds the decision was made; what information on the subject has come into the possession of the Board since the 24th February last, when
  1644
  the Board wrote to the local education authority desiring that authority to reconsider its proposal to discontinue the maintenance of the school; if the Board have received any communication from the parents of children attending the school; and, if so, what is the nature of that communication.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA): I presume the hon. Member refers to the Halifax All Saints Church of England school. The Board intimated in September, 1903, that the premises of this school could only be recognised temporarily. In January last the local education authority informed the Board that as there was no sign of a now building being commenced, they proposed to discontinue maintenance. The Board suggested that as the managers now proposed to begin rebuilding the local education authority should reconsider their decision. The authority stated that in view of the fact that the existing building was unsafe and unhealthy they were not prepared to adopt this suggestion, and after consideration of a further report from their inspectors as to the condition of the premises the Board intimated that they would not interfere. I have received a petition from parents desiring the continuation of the school, but I cannot see my way to modify my previous decision.
  MR. BRIDGEMANasked whether the delay in building these schools was originally due to alterations demanded by the corporation of Halifax and not to the managers, who had done all they could to hurry on the building of the schools.
  MR. CARLILEinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman could say what distance the children attending the council school had to go, and whether it was not a fact that the council school was 100 feet below the level of the parish.
  MR. McKENNA: I must have notice of both these Questions. In regard to that of the hon. Member for Oswestry, I must point out that the first notice was given to the managers in September, 1903, and as we are now in the month of May, 1907, it does not matter what

  1645
  the action of the council was, but certainly ample time was given to the managers.
  MR. BRIDGEMANwished to know what had occurred since February last to make the Board of Education alter their policy.
  MR. McKENNA: The Board sent down an inspector, and on his Report they decided not to over-rule the decision of the local authority.
  LORD BALCABRES: Has the inspector reported that the school is both dangerous and in sanitary?
  MR. McKENNA: That the building was dangerous and unhealthy.

  School Accommodation.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is proposed to revise the recognised accommodation of provided schools in the same way and on the same scale as that of non-provided schools.
  MR. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. predecessor on 7th November last, †in which he stated that the aim of the Board of Education was to secure for each child in a public elementary school ten square feet of floor space. In the case of new schools or enlargements their practice now is always to insist on this; and, as regards existing schools, they endeavour to bring about the same state of things. But in exercising pressure to this end some regard has to be paid to the heavy burden that would be placed upon the rates by any sudden demand for so large an increase of school provision as would be entailed by a universal application of a ten feet scale.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I gather from the Answer that this is done only in the case of provided schools.
  MR. McKENNA: That is a very complicated question to answer. The rules that must guide the Board in the case of voluntary schools are not the
  † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 550–1.
  1646
  same in enforcing satisfactory conditions as they are in the case of council schools.
  LORD BALCARRES: The number of cubic feet required from a health point of view is the same in provided as in non-provided schools, is it not?
  MR. MCKENNA: Precisely the same. We are endeavouring to bring the measure up to ten feet square in every case.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what provided and non-provided schools have been subjected to the revision of recognised accommodation during the past and present financial years.
  MR. McKENNA: The new List of Public Elementary Schools, which will, I hope, be published early next month, will show all changes in recognised accommodation occurring between 1st August, 1905, and 31st July, 1906. It would be impossible at present to give a list of changes occurring since that date, but they will be included in the next issue of the List of Schools.

  South Kensington Museum—Free Nights.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of changing one of the late free nights of the South Kensington Museum from Tuesday to Thursday in order that shop assistants may have an opportunity of visiting the institution who cannot do so at any time except on a Thursday evening.
  MR. McKENNA: The Board have now before them the question as to the times of opening of the Museum and my hon. friend's point will be borne in mind.

  Foreign Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any slops have been taken by the Board of Agriculture either to prevent or to punish the infringement of Sections 5 and 6 of the Hop Act, 1866, by importers and vendors of foreign hops; and whether the Board

  1647
  of Agriculture will render these sections effective by instituting proceedings against those who violate their provisions in future.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): We are advised that it is not clear that Section 5 of the Act to which the hon. Member refers is applicable to foreign hops and that Section 6 certainly does not do so. In any case the Board are not empowered to take steps either to prevent or to punish infringements of those enactments.

  Education (Provision of Meals) (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the course adopted by the Standing Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) (Scotland) Bill, if he will state when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As soon as possible; but I am not able to say more At present.

  Proposed Irish Council.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why it is proposed that the cost of the first election to the Irish Council shall be provided by Parliament and not by the Irish Exchequer as for subsequent elections.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): As the financial provisions of the Bill will not come into force until after the first Council has been elected, it is considered reasonable that the expenses of the first election should be borne by Parliament.

  Mr. Justice Ross and Disorder in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross, on 17th May, in connection with a case of driving cattle off a grass farm at Shrole, county Roscommon, that a widespread and audacious
  1648
  conspiracy is at present rampant in the West of Ireland, which on ordinary moral grounds amounted to highway robbery; and whether the Government will take more energetic measures to check the intimidation which is being practised.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Ross on the intimidation practised in connection with the letting of lands on the Chancery estate of G. A. Kelly, a minor, in county Roscommon, and the existence of a widespread conspiracy to prevent the hinds in hand on this and other estates in the West of Ireland from being let; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The observations of Mr. Justice Ross, as reported in the newspapers, include the statement attributed to him in the Question. There is no evidence before the Government showing that a widespread conspiracy is rampant in the West of Ireland. It is, however, the fact that cattle have been driven off farms in a number of individual cases, and, as I have repeatedly stated, the police are taking energetic measures to prevent such acts, and to bring offenders to justice. In the particular case to which Mr. Justice Boss referred, a prosecution was directed a week before he made the remarks quoted, and that prosecution is now pending.
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is considerable disturbance and disorder in this part of Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have repeatedly stated that in certain limited areas of Ireland there is considerable cause for anxiety.

  Arson in Kildysart.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information of the destruction by fire of a quantity of hay in the district of Kildysart, county Leitrim, recently; and whether any persons have been prosecuted in connection with these fires.
  MR. BIRRELL: Kildysart is in county Clare, not Leitrim. I am informed by the police authorities that one case of burning has occurred in that district, namely, the destruction of a rick of hay on the 1st instant. No prosecution has been instituted.

  Mr. P. J. Kelly J.P.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether renewed attention has been called recently to the conduct of Mr. P. J. Kelly J. P., on the Gurteen bench; and whether the Lord Chancellor has taken, or intends to take, any action in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that his attention has not been called to any conduct of Mr. Kelly on the Gurteen bench, but recently his attention was directed to a report of certain proceedings at Athenry Petty Sessions at which Mr. Kelly was one of the presiding magistrates. The Lord Chancellor did not consider that the report disclosed any action on Mr. Kelly's part which, called for his interference.

  Roscomroe Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of times recently that the stock of Mr. Luttrell have been driven off his farm at Roscomroe; how many police are stationed in the neighbourhood; and whether he will see that a sufficient force is provided to check the lawless acts of agitators who desire to dispossess Mr. Luttrell of his lands.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Luttrell's cattle were driven off his farm on two occasions, namely, 30th April and 18th May, and proceedings are being taken against a number of persons in each of these cases. Since the 22nd instant, a police force consisting of a district inspector and twenty-five men has been encamped on the farm for the purpose of preventing further interference with the cattle. The farm is remote from a police station, the two nearest stations being six and seven miles away.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1650
  of Ireland if he will state the number of recruits for the Royal Irish Constabulary obtained during the first quarter of 1907, and the number obtained during the corresponding quarter of 1906.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of recruits for the Royal Irish Constabulary enrolled in the first quarter of 1907 was 204, and the number for the corresponding quarter of 1906 was 140.
  MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the difference?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes. Twenty-five years ago the Irish force was largely increased and the period of retirement of the men then recruited is now falling due, consequently there are more vacancies to be filled up.

  Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when he will be in a position to give to the House the results of the investigations into the claims of evicted tenants to be reinstated in their holdings.
  MR. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the House, the Estates Commissioners will immediately after the end of this month proceed, to draw up a special Report upon the cases of evicted tenants which have then been investigated. The Commissioners anticipate that this Report will be ready by the middle of next month, and I shall then make a statement on the subject as soon as may be possible.
  MR. LONSDALE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number reinstated?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should prefer the hon. Member to wait for the Report.

  Land Law (Ireland)Acts Amendment Bill.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the course which the Government intend to pursue in regard to the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill.
  MR. BIRRELL: This is not a Government measure. The Bill has been committed to a Standing Committee, of

  1651
  which my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland and myself are members. I have no statement to make on the subject at present.
  MR. LONSDALE: Do the Government intend to take the Bill up?
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member had better wait and see what course the Bill takes.

  Irish Land Purchase—Advances by the Estate Commissioners.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have in any, and, if so, how many, cases sanctioned advances of over £3,000 for the purchase of holdings, and in how many cases have they refused to sanction such advances under The Land Purchase(Ireland) Act, 1903.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member will find the information for which he asks up to 31st March, 1906,on page 28 of the last Annual Report of the Estates Commissioners and on page 19 of the Appendix to the Report. Further information on the subject will be given in the Commissioners' Report for the year ending 31st March last which is at present in course of preparation.

  Irish Land Purchase—Agreements for Sale.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in the case of how many estates in Ireland have agreements for sale under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1903, been lodged; in how many have the sales been completed and purchase money allocated; and in how many cases of agreements lodged so far back as 1904 are the sales still not completed.
  MR. BIRRELL: Agreements for sale under the Act of 1903 have been lodged in respect of 4,727 estates, and advances have been made in respect of 1,494 of these estates. The Estates Commissioners inform me that the sales have been completed in nearly all the cases in respect of which agreements were lodged in 1904. It would not be possible to state precisely how many of the latter cases are still outstanding
  1652
  without a minute investigation of the Commissioners' records, which would occupy a considerable time.

  Belfast Resident Magistrates.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the disparity of the provision made for resident magistrates in Belfast as compared with that made for the police magistrates of Dublin, the Government will give facilities for the Belfast Resident Magistrates Bill at present before the House.
  MR. BIRRELL: Having regard to the present state of public business, I am afraid that the Government could not give special facilities for this Bill, which, as the hon. Member is aware, is not a Government measure.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind to do nothing for the North of Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I have not made up my mind.

  Agrarian Outrages in Connaught.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases, during the month ending 25th May, have cattle been forcibly driven off farms in Ireland, and in how many cases have prosecutions followed; have extra police, and, if so, how many, been drafted into the province of Connaught to prevent cattle driving or other forms of outrage; and in how many cases are police encamped upon farms that have been raided or are threatened with cattle driving raids.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that during the month ended 25th May, approximately, twenty cases of driving cattle off farms occurred, and prosecutions have been instituted in eight of these cases. During the same period six police officers and 280 men were drafted into Connaught. In two cases policemen are encamped on farms, one being in county Roscommon and the other in King's County.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the disparity arises between the number of cases and the number of prosecutions?
  MR. BIRRELL: We institute prosecutions where we get the necessary evidence.

  Royal Irish Constabulary and Grazing Farm Disputes.
  MR. CHAELES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in certain disturbed districts in Ireland, and in cases where disorderly crowds have to be dispersed, or where graziers and other persons obnoxious to the United Irish League have to be protected from active intimidation and assault, the Royal Irish Constabulary have received instructions from headquarters that under no circumstances are they to make arrests, and that, if it is necessary to take legal proceedings to vindicate the law, it must be done by summons; and whether, in view of the failure of the police to maintain order in those districts, he will see that these instructions are revoked and that the police are armed with powers as full as are accorded to the police in England and Scotland.
  MR. BIRRELL: No such instructions have been issued to the police.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of men usually held in reserve at the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, Dublin, and what was the number in reserve on the 20th instant; and how many men have been drafted from the depot to the various disturbed districts in the South and West of Ireland since 1st January last.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of men of the Reserve Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary which may be available at the depot at any time depends upon the number which may be absent on duty throughout the country. On 20th instant the number of the Reserve Force actually at the depot was 143. Since 1st January last 177 men of the Reserve have been drafted from the depot into various districts in Ireland.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Recruits.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of
  1654
  recruits at present undergoing training at the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot in Dublin; and whether orders have been issued for the immediate enrolment of 180 additional recruits; and, if so, what is the necessity for so materially increasing the number of the police force in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: The number of recruits at present in training is 320. No orders have been issued for the enrolment of recruits beyond the number required to fill vacancies caused by the ordinary wastage of the force.

  Loughrea Raids.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Thursday, the 9th instant, the houses of Thomas Glynn, Michael Egan, and George Earkins, in Coorheen, Kileenadeema, Loughrea, were raided and searched for arms by men with masked faces; whether any persons have been arrested in connection with the matter; what is the nearest police station to the scene of the outrage; and what steps are the police taking in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question. No person has been arrested. The nearest police station is Loughrea, two miles distant. The police are making every possible effort to bring the offenders to justice.

  Athenry Outrage.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of the l5th instant, at about11 o'clock, the house of Thomas Duddy, situated in the centre of the town of Athenry, was fired into, and that the fact that Duddy drove some of the police on his car contrary to the orders of the United Irish League in that town is assigned as the cause of the outrage; and whether, in view of the fact that several similar cases of firing into houses in Athenry have occurred during the last two years, he will increase the police force there, and will supply them with fuller powers for detecting and preventing crime of this character.
  MR. BIRRELL: Thomas Duddy's house was fired into on the date mentioned.

  1655
  It is the fact that Duddy drove the police on his car a month ago, but the police have no reason to believe that this fact furnished the motive for the firing, and so far as they are aware the United Irish League has in no way interferred in the matter. The police force at Athenry Station has been increased by twenty-five men, making the present number forty-one. The police possess full powers for the prevention arid detection of crime. The state of the district has been and is receiving the closest possible attention.

  Unlawful Assembly Trial in the West of Ireland.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is intended to apply to the King's Bench for orders to change the venue of trials for unlawful assembly at present pending in connection with attempts to prevent the letting of grazing lands in the West of Ireland to places where there would be some prospect of a fair trial; and whether it is intended to do so in the case in county Leitritu where persons of the name of Brady are boycotted, and in the pending cases from the Athenry district in county Galway.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I have no intention at present of applying for a change of venue in the cases referred to in the Question; nor have I any reason to believe that the accused persons will not receive a fair trial in the counties in which they will, in ordinary course, be tried at the coming summer assizes.
  MR. MOORE: Is it not the fact that two juries consecutively have disagreed in the case of raiders in Connaught?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Indian Budget Debate.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the character of the interests involved, to the anxiety felt in this House and in the country regarding the present position of affairs in India, to the fact that the debate on the Budget is the only occasion afforded to the House to discuss Indian subjects, and to the importance of allowing the Secretary of State an opportunity of making a full
  1656
  reply to the questions raised, he will allow the discussion on the Indian Budget this year to be extended over two days.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I think one day should suffice —it will be a full day—unless in the meantime new incidents should arise, which I hope will not be the case.

  Land Values (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state when the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, which was presented and read a first time in the House on Monday, 13th May, will be printed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has been some unavoidable delay, but I understand the Bill will shortly be printed.
  MR. BARRIE: Has there been any change in the details of the Bill since its introduction?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bill when printed will be found to be in perfect accordance with the statement of my right hon. friend in introducing it.
  MR. MOORE: Was that course followed in the case of the Irish Council Bill?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: To the best of my belief it was.

  All-British Mail Route.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has taken any steps with regard to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the cost of and the other measures necessary for the establishment of a fast All-British mail route, as recommended by the Imperial Conference and promised by His Majesty's Government.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade is now examining the matter departmentally with the aid of experts, and until the investigation is further advanced it is not possible to

  1657
  say whether the appointment of a formal Committee will be necessary. As to the nature of the assurances given on this subject by His Majesty's Government, the House had better wait until the proceedings of the Conference are published.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Limited Partnerships Bill): Sir Henry Norman; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Limited Partnerships Bill): Mr. Joseph Pease.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill): Lord Willoughby de Eresby.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Vaccination Bill); Sir Edward Strachey; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  INJURED ANIMALS ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Injured Animals Act, 1894," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Sir William Brampton Gurdon and Sir Frederick Banbury; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES (EXPENSES).
  Resolution reported; "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money voted by Parliament for Army services of necessary expenditure incurred by associations in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide for the reorganisation of His Majesty's military forces, and for that purpose to authorise
  1658
  the establishment of county associations and the raising and maintenance of a Territorial Force and to amend the Acts relating to the Reserve Forces."
  Resolution read a second time:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,"
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,),who was indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to say that a month or six weeks ago he laid on the Table of the House an approximate estimate of the cost of the Territorial Army when it came into existence, amounting to £2,800,000. Since then an additional estimate of £625,000 had been presented to the House. Of that amount about one-third—£200,000—was due to items which were specifically excluded from the original estimate, and £425,000 represented concessions which had been made by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in answer to representations which had been made to him by Members of the House. He thought he was within the mark in saying that those Estimates were ample. They represented what was believed to be the maximum cost of the new force. It was, he thought, impossible that they could be exceeded, and they could not, in any probability, be reached for a large number of years. They had endeavoured to give the maximum estimate of the Territorial Force mobilised on a war footing. It was, of course, largely in excess of any establishment of forces that would be wanted in time of peace. That alone gave them a very large margin to work upon. There were margins also in the various other items, and it would take a long series of years to work up to anything like that total. With regard to the sum entered for a second suit of clothes, the item allowed for that did not represent the total cost of a second suit of clothes given to the 300,000 odd men in the Territorial Army. It was more than ample to allow for the upkeep of a suit of clothes, which was taken to last for four years. The sum was calculated on that basis, and it left a very considerable margin for any possible extravagance in any individual association.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked where was the sum for the original cost of providing those clothes.
  MR. BUCHANANreplied that they did not propose to provide the men with clothes right away. The uniforms they already possessed would be handed over to the county associations.
  MR. ASHLEY: If the walking out suit is to last four years, how long is the service suit supposed to last?
  MR. BUCHANANsaid it would probably last two or three years. These figures were based on the experience already obtained in the Volunteers. He was very anxious that the estimate he had laid before the House should not be increased, but he felt confident that within the figure indicated they would be perfectly able to bear to the full the necessary expenses for the Territorial Force. As regarded the method of payment to the associations, it was intended that there should be a Vote for the Territorial Army, and ultimately that Vote would supersede the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Votes, which would gradually decrease as the Territorial Army Vote went up. Under the Bill the bulk of the money for the Territorial Army would be paid over to the county associations. The general lines upon which they proposed to go were those of the existing Volunteer Vote, but they were going to introduce certain modifications with regard to the payments under that Vote which experience had shown to be desirable. Instead of including everything under capitation grants, they proposed to separate certain fixed charges which depended not upon the numbers of the corps concerned, but were fixed from year to year as necessary to each unit. They would thus divide off the charges which might be looked upon as of a more or loss permanent character, and those which necessarily varied from year to year. They could work out from past experience what the establishment charges were, and they would go upon that. The capitation grant seemed to him to be quite adequate. They would insist on compensation being paid for drill halls, and money would be provided for that purpose. They would
  1660
  be maintained in the future by means of a sinking fund, but the Government could not hold out any hope of being able to advance capital to purchase them. The last paragraph of the Resolution showed the means by which they wished to secure the control over the finances of the county associations. At the present moment the colonel of a Volunteer regiment had control over its expenditure, its efficiency, and so forth, but in future that duty would fall upon the general officer in command of the district, while every person would be made responsible. That system would furnish them with the true mode in which capitation grants should be made. The accounts would be open to the inspection of the Accountant General of the War Office and the Auditor and Comptroller-General. The control over the money spent ought to be no less complete than that over the money spent at the present moment on the Volunteers and Auxiliary Forces, and the Government were in favour of securing that. The method by which they proposed to secure sufficient control over the associations was this: At the present moment the various colonels sent in the nominal roll of men who were efficient, but the money was distributed through other channels. They proposed to make the officer, probably the brigadier who furnished them with the nominal roll, ultimately responsible, because they would pay the capitation grant on that. Money, as he had stated, would not be put under the control of the Territorial Army but under the general control of the officials dealing with the service. He could not at present add anything to that statement, but he would be glad to answer any inquiries on the subject. The accounts sent up would be available for inspection by the Accountant-General of the War Office and the Comptroller-General. The estimate of the cost of the Territorial Army was, in his judgment, ample, and when the three Auxiliary Forces were amalgamated he thought we should have a better fighting force in the second line organised on the general principles of unity, and at a lower cost than we had at the present moment.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that perhaps the

  1661
  hon. Gentleman who had just sat clown was one of the highest authorities in the House on the control by the House and the Treasury of the expenditure of the country. The Financial Secretary had won his distinction in the House by his services in regard to that question. He had alluded to the control of the House as being as continuous and as complete as it was in the case of the Volunteers, a remark which he ventured to say in a recent debate by means of a disorderly interruption meant "none at all," because the House really enjoyed no control over the Volunteers. This was a matter for the House of Commons and the House of Commons alone. There was no doubt that the question which they discussed last night and left unfinished must be cleared up by Amendments to Clauses 12 and 32, which were not discussed. The matter could not be left as it was. But, the question which they were now discussing was one in regard to which they had the final and effective voice, and after all that they had learned of military finance in the last five or six years and of the changes of opinion during the time of the late Government—the difference of views between the War Office, the Treasury, and the Army Council which came before the Public AccountsCommittee—they could not pass this matter by in silence. They must know where they were in regard to the control of the Territorial Army, and that was peculiarly a House of Commons matter for which there would be no other opportunity of discussion. It seemed that in the future they would have one Vote instead of three Votes in regard to the Territorial Forces, and in so far as that was the fact it was not a change for the better as regarded the control of the House, because it deprived them of the advantage of discussing the separate services separately. The statement that the funds were to be handed over to the county associations as those of a "going concern" was very vague, and they did not know how it affected stores and equipments in hand. A reply seemed moreover to indicate that the pay and allowances would be under the control of the commanding officer in camp while other expenses would be accounted for by the county associations. On the 10th of May the Secretary of
  1662
  State went into more detail. The right hon. Gentleman said the grants would be applicable only to authorised objects. At the present moment in the case of the Volunteers that was so, but the money being given in more or less a lump sum the choice between the authorised objects was one that was not within the control of Parliament at all. His right hon. friend went on and clearly showed that he did not draw a sound distinction between audit and appropriation, audit being secured in every case, but appropriation being secured by a certain system peculiar to this country. Audit was one thing, but appropriation was another. They were satisfied that the audit would be all right. They were concerned about the appropriation and desired to be satisfied about that. The hon. Gentleman which had just spoken knew how controversy raged between the Army Council and the Public Accounts Committee three or four years ago.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)was understood to say that that was a superstition.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he relied on the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and not on unauthorised statements by gentlemen outside the House, whose knowledge, however, no one could doubt. No one could doubt the knowledge of Mr. Bowles on the subject. He based his observations on the facts brought before the Committee by the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and on the changes made based on the Order in Council. That was not superstition unless the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament and the Cabinet and the Treasury that backed up the Committee against the Army Council were all wrong. The Public Accounts Committee had named three flagrant cases where money had been taken for one purpose and expended on another. The audit was all right. It was a question of appropriation pure and simple. Those cases were in the index, but he did not desire to read them to the House. They were in the Report and he could point to the pages where they

  1663
  appeared. One was a Volunteer case in which an expenditure was taken under the Volunteer Vote for one purpose and expended on a purpose other than that for which it was intended. Then there was a case last year upon which they reported that the terms of the Order in Council of August, 1902, had been exceeded, as there had been a diversion of money from its proper course. The excuse they gave might assist his right hon. friend, although it was not a good reason at the time it was given, and therefore lie would make him a present of it for what it was worth. It was that there was a lack of finality in dealing with the Auxiliary Forces. He presented it to his right hon. friend because the right hon. Gentleman no doubt believed he was reaching finality by this reorganisation. But the House ought to know what was the finality they were reaching. There was another case which the Public Accounts Committee reported, in which they stated that the payment of capitation grants was conditional on the fulfilment of certain obligations laid down by the Order in Council, and that those provisions had not been complied with. The way to prevent these things happening in future was clearly to insure that the Treasury regulations should be Treasury regulations and not Army Council regulations; that they should be inspired not by Army Council but by Treasury views if there happened to be a difference of opinion, and that they should be in a form which would commend them to Parliament. In the Bill before the House there was a provision for laying these Treasury regulations before Parliament, but anyone reading those words would find nothing in their provisions which gave a power of disallowance. They were not to be effectively laid before Parliament. They were to be produced. There was to be no laying them on the Table for so many days, and he was afraid that laying before Parliament would be of an illusory character unless Parliament could wring from the Treasury to-day regulations to secure not only audit but appropriation in the sense Parliament desired. These were questions which excited much interest in the House. There were questions upon the Paper now. One was to be asked to-morrow on this subject. Surely it was much better that
  1664
  these matters should not be dealt with at Question time, but that the answers should be given in that debate. He could not help thinking that under the Bill the loose system of finance which had hitherto been confined to the Volunteers would be to some extent extended. It was limited in some ways, in the ways previously announced by his hon. friend, who had made certain divisions under certain heads, which was an improvement so far as it went, but it was extended in another sense because more money was going to be spent. If the new system was to be a good one the expenditure would have to be an increasing one, and the system of finance the House was adopting ought to be carefully scrutinised, as it would be the military financial system of the future. Coming to detail, he would repeat that what they wanted was not audit, but appropriation, which was quite different from audit and much more difficult to obtain, and was peculiar to this country. The precedents were such as to make it reasonable. When the Yeomanry went out to war, there was a grotesque appropriation of money, entirely through the looseness of the military finance. In such a case the audit would detect certain evils but not others. The money would be spent, but not spent in the way intended. He asked hon. Members interested in the subject to look at the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee and at the Order in Council issued by the late Government after the dispute between the Army Council and the Treasury. In the Order was laid down the principle upon which the House ought to act. It was sufficiently secured by the Order in Council. He now came to questions of detail. The original estimate criticised on the Second Reading of the Bill was called an approximate estimate. He did not blame any one for that, because it was admittedly a difficult matter to estimate for a change of this kind. The difficulties were very great. They had now an additional estimate upon the subject. He had read with surprise in the Paper in his hand and had heard with surprise to-day the statement made by his hon. friend the Financial Secretary that it was an estimate that ought not to be laid before the House; that it was a

  1665
  war estimate; an inflated estimate; an estimate for a state of things that could never exist. Why should the Government give such an estimate—an estimate which in the very nature of affairs was an extreme estimate. It was almost too good. It was like a prospectus.
  MR. ASHLEY: It will never go to allotment.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his own view of the estimate would be the other way. It would be an under estimate, not for abnormal but for normal circumstances. The hon. Gentleman had repeated to-day that it was ample; that it was a war estimate and therefore gave a large margin in time of peace: but, it would enable them to spend for one purpose what they happened to have for another. He did not wish to overstate the case, but his suggestion to the House was that they were voting a lump sum, and that the figures were not given to the House. There were certain points mentioned on the Second Reading which remained outside this estimate altogether. There was an additional estimate for certain forms of equipment, hut that meant storage for equipment, which cost more than the equipment itself. Storage was not always connected with the drill hall, and it was a matter in regard to which different battalions in different counties stood in very different positions. It was coubtful in his mind how far, as regarded the points that were named, the expenditure on drill halls and on ranges was satisfactorily met in the estimate before them, and he mentioned t them as items and matters which ought to be considered. As regarded c imp allowances, they were left in a nebulous position; the matter was extremely vague. He would like to ask the House to notice one of the assurances given to them on that subject. The Secretary of State had constantly used the words "substantially the same." He said that the Yeomanry were to be treated in "substantially the same" way as at present, but he then said that he repudiated the suggestion that there was to be one standard for
  1666
  the Yeomanry and another for everybody else; he said that it was to be an all round standard. As to camp allowance, it included all kinds of different things; did that allowance mean an increase all round, on a certain scale, for infantry and other branches of the Territorial Army, as had been promised to the Yeomanry? If so, he could not see that the money could possibly be sufficient. The figure of 2s. a head, which had been mentioned, was greatly exceeded in the case of the fifteen days camp, and in some parts of the country it might be 4s. and 5s. a day for pay alone for the fifteen days camp. They ought to make a distinction between the Regular soldier, who was engaged all the year round for several years, and the Volunteer who was in camp for the public service for fifteen days. It was quite a different thing inducing a man to go into camp for fifteen days; they must offer him more liberal terms than they would to a man who took up soldiering as his trade for the whole year round. The difference between the two cases was very great. It was perfectly defensible to give the Volunteer better rations for the short time he was in camp in order to make him a happier man, than it was thought necessary to give in the case of a man with whom they were dealing all the year round. The principle laid clown in the House of Lords by Lord Portsmouth as being the principle of the Bill was, he thought, a sound one, that the men, to use the noble Lord's own term—though it was not carried out in the estimate—were to be paid for every day they were at work. But it could not be shown that that principle was acted upon in regard to the infantry force in the accounts which they had before them. There were a great many matters outside the estimate which would increase the amount to be spent under the Bill. There were promises given in the House; of Lords as to the men enlisted before the Bill became law, and there was also the promise in regard to the Militia battalions who joined the Territorial Army. In that case there was a promise given in the House of Lords that a higher course of training than the mere fifteen days would be required, but that

  1667
  it was a question of money. Undoubtedly the question of money would become more important before the Bill passed into law. These battalions must receive the higher rate of pay, but there was no provision for it in the Territorial Army Estimate. The Secretary of State had made one satisfactory promise on this subject since the Second Reading debate. There was a certain vagueness before that debate as to how far they were going to have appeals for public subscriptions to finance the Territorial Army. But Questions had been put to the right hon. Gentleman who had pledged himself that the hat was not to be sent round for the Territorial Army. Therefore, they had to face the financing of the matter, and put it on a thoroughly sound basis. That was now understood. They had got to finance the Territorial Army. He would just mention two heads out of the four or five about which his hon. friend opposite had asked for an explanation. Clothing was a matter which had excited great attention in the House, and about which a great number of Questions had been put. There had been difficulty in finding out exactly what was meant. He had given attention to the subject, but he confessed that he had not the least idea what was meant. The Answers which had been given to the Questions put had not cleared up the matter. The Answer to the hon. Member for Darlington was that the cost of one suit was 10s. 5d. a head. Whoever supplied the Answer to his right hon. friend had supplied it badly. The Question was repeated, and the Answer was corrected.
  MR. HALDANE: No, no.
  *SIR CHAELES DILKE: I confess I thought so.
  MR. HALDANE: The same Answer was given.
  *SIR CHAELES DILKE: You mean the Question of the new suit?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  *SIR CHAELES DILKE: Well, the one new suit was £2 17s. 3d. per man, or
  1668
  £829,000. That was one suit. But how did that work out with the figures which had been given that day? He had read through the accounts to try to make out what he could buy for the sum, but he had not succeeded. Although the different arms varied very much in their requirements, yet the 10s. 5d. did not appear to be borne out even if the one suit was to last two or three years. [An HON. MEMBER: Four years.] Four years for a walking out suit and two or three years for the working suit. On neither of those principles could he account for the particular figures. This was not a 2½d. matter, because everybody knew that the question of clothing had a very important bearing on a force. Frequently the best men of a regiment were the worst dressed, the reason being that they were often concerned in its finance, and they made their clothes last as long as possible; they were the older men, and probably did not care about looking smart; but for the young recruits they ought to provide the dress on a liberal scale to make it more attractive, and it was by no means the worst class of recruit that they attracted in that way. The walking-out suit lasted four years. They could not get a walking-out suit for four times 10s. 5d., if they included the cap or helmet, and other items. They were told last night that they were going to be put on an equal footing; were they going to be put on an equal footing in respect of all these things? Was the Territorial Army going to have what the Militia had got by pressure? One word as to the adjutants. The financial question with regard to the adjutants had been as difficult to him as in regard to the other matters. If they looked at the total amount under the different heads of the Army Estimates, the sum for adjutants was a very large one indeed. If they looked at the cost of the adjutants one by one they found, roughly speaking, that it averaged £1 a day per head. It seemed to him that taking adjutant by adjutant, they got a sum very much larger than the estimate. The new estimate gave £140,000 additional to the £100 per year. The total cost of the adjutants appeared to be much higher than the sum of £260,000 allowed by the Secretary of State for War. Taking even that as the amount, if they

  1669
  deducted the £140,000 that gave an excess of £120,000, and he was quite sure there was nothing like that sum put down in the original return. That was a matter upon which he thought the House ought to have clear information. The non-effective point had been thoroughly explained, but there remained the question of bounties. It was difficult to ascertain how far bounties came within this Resolution. In Ireland they had a different scheme, and that scheme became more and more doubtful every day because they had hitherto understood that in Ireland the Militia were going to continue as Militia. After what was said last night the Militia in Ireland appeared to be assuming the form of a new type of Regulars. The battalions which took the place of the Regular Reserve battalions here would exist in Ireland. As there were going to be Territorial Associations in Ireland he did not know how far those bounties would form a part of the Territorial Army or the Regular Army schemes. He would like some information on that point. The questions asked in the House of Lords showed that the Government were considering annual and additional bounties and special Irish Militia bounties which might or might not fall within the words of this Resolution and about which they were entitled to some information. Far from being grossly over-estimated, he thought the cost had been under-estimated. As for the depots, he imagined that they were outside this Resolution. The third part of the Bill was not Territorial Army finance, and could be done by the Army authorities without a Bill. In the annual memorandum dealing with the British Army there was a paragraph about depots, in which the Inspector-General for Recruiting referred to the detrimental effect upon recruiting which was produced by the miserable condition in which the depots were. Under this Bill those depots would continue to be used for another class of men, and that fact could not be looked forward to without contemplating a large expenditure upon those depots. He apologised to the House for the time he had taken up, and concluded by repeating his belief that the subjects raised in the debate
  1670
  were deserving of the attention of the Government.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he did not propose to follow the right hon. Baronet into the details of his speech. He agreed with him when he said he had quoted sufficient cases to prove that the estimate now presented to the House certainly under-estimated the cost. He proposed to deal more with the question of the control of the House of Commons and the Public Accounts Committee over the expenditure. At Question time he asked the Secretary for War if he would refer his statement of requirements in which his estimate was presented to the House to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration and report, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed a little doubtful as to whether there were any precedents for such a reference. Sir Erskine May laid down that under established usage important changes in the customary form of the Estimates should not be made without the previous approval of the Public Accounts Committee acting on behalf of the House of Commons, and, in deference to that principle, official alterations of the Estimates were restricted to such arrangements as involved no question of principle. Last year some small changes were made in the Army Estimates, but they were submitted to the Public Accounts Committee who expressed their approval of the suggested change. After the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office it was clear that Votes 3, 4, and 5 for the Militia. Yeomanry, and Volunteers would ultimately disappear, and their place would be taken by a comprehensive Vote for the Territorial Forces. The difficulty which many of them experienced in endeavouring to understand the numerous Papers which had been laid before them by the Army Council in reference to this Bill had been to distinguish between the estimates made for the Territorial Force and money which was to be provided for the work of the County Associations. Did the amount put down include the whole cost of the operations which would devolve upon the county organisations under the Bill? The first estimate presented stated that no provision

  1671
  was made in the estimate for the initial expenditure upon guns, rifles, and capital expenditure upon drill halls and rifle ranges. Had the Government formed any estimate of what that cost would be? There did not appear to be any provision for such things as the secretariat of the County Associations.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The particulars are given on page 4.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHthought the principle adopted was to include everything which was not specially connected with the actual training and equipment of the soldiers. Out of the money voted to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties, the association would have to defray the cost of the official staff, the rent or acquisition of their offices, the establishment and maintenance of rifle clubs, and other matters. According to information which they had, Parliament would be asked to provide the money under certain heads, with the deliberate knowledge that the county associations, if they, were to carry out the purposes of the Act, would have to spend the money on purposes of which Parliament was ignorant at the time it passed the Votes. It was essential, in the first place, that the House should know the objects for which they were asked to vote certain sums of money. Unless they knew the whole system of appropriation absolutely fell to the ground. Unless they got that; information it would be impossible for the House to see whether the money had been spent in the manner intended. He regretted that it had not been found possible in the numerous Papers which had been presented to hon. Members to give a more detailed statement as to the form in which the Estimates would be presented to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman had stated plainly that afternoon that the Government were going to proceed on the lines of the Volunteer Vote. He had heard that statement with considerable regret. It might or might not have been the best way of dealing with the Volunteer Vote in the past, but certainly it was not a justification for the method being extended, not only to a much larger sum
  1672
  of money, but to the possibility of the money being spent in numerous different ways. He was not at all sure that under the Bill as it now stood even the very modified control which the House had over the expenditure of the Volunteers would be preserved. Of course it was possible that under the Orders in Council which would be necessary under the Bill means would be taken to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General had full access to all the books and papers of the different associations. At present he had access to the accounts of the Volunteer corps for the purpose of examination.
  MR. BUCHANAN: There would be the same power.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he would like to see that statement in the Bill itself if it could be got in. He would have preferred to have something in a clause to get the Treasury into a more prominent position than it occupied in the Bill. He hoped that before the House finally parted with the Bill more information would be given on that point. It was really impossible to come to any conclusion as to how far the control of the House was weakened until they had an opportunity of seeing the Estimates in the form they were to take. He understood from an Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman that the expenditure was to be a matter between the Army Council and the County Associations. He did not very much care how the Army Council got their information from the County Associations. What he wanted to know before the Bill passed was how the Estimates for the year were to be placed before the House of Commons. Until they really saw the form the Estimates were going to take it was impossible to feel satisfied as to the control which the House was to have. The mere statement that the Government was going to proceed on the same lines as in the case of the Volunteers was to his mind unsatisfactory. When they were making a big new departure, not only in their military organisation, but in the control which the House was to have over the future organisation, he thought they were bound to proceed with the greatest caution. He appealed to the Secretary

  1673
  of State for War to give, if possible, some information which would reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House who at present had considerable doubts as to what wore the real intentions of the War Office on this question. Although they might not all be able to agree as to the merits of the scheme, the right hon. Gentleman would do a good service if he would show that the House of Commons control over expenditure would be retained under the Bill.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire had put before the House some reasonable criticisms which might be urged against the proposals of the Secretary of State for War. He hoped that any criticism which he himself had to offer would be useful and helpful to the Government. He would endeavour to strengthen them where they were weak. He thought they were decidedly weak on the question of financial control. The present financial Resolution was not only of first importance but of unusual importance, having regard to the fact that a controversy had been going on for a considerable time between the Army and Parliament on the question of financial control. He thought that the financial control of Parliament was weakened under the provisions of this Bill. That was all the more serious, not only in the light of the controversy to which he referred, but after the statement which the Secretary of State for War made some time ago that he wished to give the military man more freedom from financial control. The right hon. Gentleman wished to give him a free hand as far as possible. He agreed that to a certain extent, perhaps, the present position was not tenable, because there was interference on certain purely military points which should be left to the military man. But he was exceedingly anxious that under this Bill Parliament should retain the control which it had had in the past over the finance of the Army. The finance of the Bill was very much in the nature of a Chinese puzzle, and the reason was that the scheme was based on certain proposals of the Esher Committee which had not been accepted, wisely he thought, in their entirety. The Esher Committee recommended that the County Associations should have com-
  1674
  plete control of command, training, administration, and finance. The right hon. Gentleman had decided that command and training should be taken away from the County Associations and that finance and administration should remain. He thought the present Resolution raised a much larger question than that—a question of great constitutional importance—because under the Bill, if the Secretary of State so wished, the control of finance and administration was not to be confined to the Territorial Army. Under Clause 2 of the Bill the Secretary of State for War reserved to himself and the King in Council a right to assign to the County Associations control over the finance and administration not only of the Territorial Army but of His Majesty's Military forces. That included the Regulars. To show that it included the Regulars he pointed out that under Clause 1, which was intended to apply only to the Territorial Army, the phrase "military forces other than the Regulars" was adopted. The matter went much further than had been represented by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because by Clause 2 it was provided that
  "An association shall have, exercise, and discharge such powers and duties connected with the organisation and administration of His Majesty's military forces as may for the time being be transferred or assigned to it by order of His Majesty signified under hand of a Secretary of State or, subject thereto, by regulations under this Act."
  That devolution to the County Associations of the administration and finance of the Regular troops by the Army Council superseded the control of Parliament, and, he submitted, created a situation of great gravity. He came now to the finance of the Territorial Army. And here he might say that the criticisms of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean were mutually destructive, although they were cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But it did not lie with hon. Gentlemen opposite to make any complaint of want of control, because under the administration of the late Government he could remember when a sum of £10,000,000 was, during the war in South Africa, transferred from one head and spent on another, which enabled the Government of the day to avoid calling a special session of Parliament to vote the money.

  1675
  The system of finance foreshadowed for the Territorial Army in the different Papers which had been submitted to the House and in the very informing speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office made the matter much more complicated than the present system. First of all, it was proposed to establish a double system of finance in regard to the Territorial Army running concurrently. The one was to apply to the training of the troops and to be subject to an Army audit. But that only applied to a very small part of the expenditure. The money spent on training the Auxiliary Forces would be much greater in the future than in the past, as all the Volunteers had now the option of going into camp for fifteen days. Last year the sum spent was £336,000 out of a total of £1,700,000, so that the part of the expenditure that was to be subject to the Army audit in future would be a very small proportion of the total sum. The portion of the expenditure that would be under the Army financial control would only apply to fifteen days in the year; while the County Associations would be responsible for the remaining 350 days, and would be exempt from the Army audit or from proper financial control. He submitted that whatever system of financial control was set up it ought to be uniform and should apply to all expenditure. He went further; he would like to see the present system of financial control for the Army made more stringent, rather than relaxed, as it would be under this Bill. What happened last year? The Army Council were asked by the Treasury to give a forecast of what their surplus was likely to be on 22nd March. Seven days before the end of the financial year the Army Council said it would be £690,000. But what was the ascertained result after the close of the financial year? A balance of £1,330,000! He submitted that a system of financial control which could allow such a state of things required to be made more stringent rather than to be relaxed. On the 30th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrived at the intermediate figure of £963,000. He submitted that the Bill would slacken financial control, and he certainly deprecated anything in that direction. He agreed with
  1676
  the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that there were grave doubts whether the Estimates submitted were sufficient. He was so convinced that the main proposition in the Bill to divide our armed forces into two lines was a good one, that he thought it was worth while paying for it; and he did not think anything was to be gained by under-estimating the expenditure. On the Second Reading of the Bill he pointed out that the original Estimate of £2,889,408 would not at all meet the requirements of the case. An addition of £625,000 had now been admitted to be absolutely necessary, making a total of £3,514.408. He understood that the Financial Secretary to the War Office had stated that there was a sum included for the administration charges of the County Associations. He very much doubted whether sufficient provision had been made for the administration of the several units of a battalion if it included the expenses incurred by the County Associations. Under the present system the commanding officer of the Volunteer battalion was personally responsible for the expenditure of his corps. That system was illogical, and ought to be abolished. It placed too much responsibility on one single man; but at the same time be believed that it tended to efficient administration and very careful expenditure; of the funds of the corps. Every commanding officer felt in honour bound for the success of his corps, and having regard to his own personal liability to see that the affairs of the corps were most carefully administered. He very much doubted, at the same time, whether the proposal to take the responsibility off the commanding officer and lay it on the County Associations would be of very much advantage. At the present time the books of each battalion were open; to inspection. The books of his own battalion had been inspected in detail. By the new proposal the inspection was to be carried out by the County Associations, but there would not be the same direct control if it had to go through the commanding officer to the County Association. His own view was that the County Associations would be a somewhat expensive luxury. There would be a combination of grants-in-aid and of payment by results. That would complicate the

  1677
  situation. He admitted that a good deal might be said for putting the administrative charges for drill halls and ranges on a separate grant; but his experience on the Public Accounts Committee was that that method would be expensive. In regard to the clothing grants, he quite understood the view of the Secretary for War in framing his estimate. It was not a case of providing a new uniform for every man in the battalion. The right hon. Gentleman only took the annual charge of providing a uniform for 200 men every year for a battalion of 800 men. On that point he thought the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had pushed his argument too far. The Secretary for War anticipated that he would make a great saving by having the clothing provided through the County Associations; but he was not then providing for a walking out dress. He would put a specific case. In the Infantry Brigade of the City of Edinburgh they had three battalions clothed as a rifle brigade; they had one battalion clothed in the territorial uniform of the district, and another which was a kilted corps. Was the County Association to take in hand the supply of clothing for all those corps or were those corps, as at present, to supply their clothing out of the capitation grant? If the corps were to do the work, he thought the Government were complicating matters by sending money through the County Associations, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some form of Army accounting could not be adopted by which the accounts of the corps should be checked through the War Office and not through the Associations. Another point was how the grant of pay to the men when in camp was to be paid. As an administrative measure the Government were going to supply County Associations with money and through them it was to filter to the corps. How was that to be done? Were the Government going to hand over to the commanding officer of the district or to the brigadier in camp the money which was necessary for this purpose? He urged the right hon. Gentleman to do something to make the matter more simple. He wished the scheme success and it was in no unfriendly spirit that he offered these criticisms, but he felt that Parliamentary control would
  1678
  be lessened by the present proposals. He wished also to draw attention to Clause 3, Sub-section 3, which provided that money paid to a county association should—
  "be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise, except with the written consent of the Army Council."
  Were they going to make the Army Council independent of the control of Parliament? That provision, along with the provision in Clause 2, where the Secretary of State took power to place the finance and administration not only of the Territorial Army but of the Regular Forces under the county associations was such that he could only characterise it as an amazing proposal. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that the whole scheme with regard to financial control would be reconsidered.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Gentleman had raised a question of great importance which was entitled to consideration, not only because he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee but because he had great experience on these subjects. The Government were not likely to have left out of account the financial principles which were concerned and which arose out of the constitution of the country, but he thought there were points in which they had overdone the tendency to take away responsibility from the soldier. He was perfectly certain that they would have had greater economy in the past if they had consulted the soldier more about how to effect economy. He pointed to this year's Estimates as some evidence that, in recognising that doctrine, they could not be said to have damaged the public finances. At the same time, they had kept to the law. Under the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1866, a broad principle was laid down which was of immense constitutional importance. Mr. Gibson Bowles, who unfortunately was not in the House, but was worthily represented, had written a pamphlet, in which he had dwelt upon the vast constitutional importance of keeping a check over the soldier. He did not require that reminder, his duty being simply to keep to the principle laid down in the

  1679
  Exchequer and Audit Act that Parliament did not allow money to be paid out excepting under its own control, and through an officer of Parliament, not an officer of any Department. How had that been pursued in the case of the Army? In the case of the Regular troops it had been pursued to an extent which was impossible in the case of the Auxiliary Forces. In the case of the Auxiliary Forces there was appreciated from the beginning the danger that correspondence between the commanding officers and the War Office would smother the battalions with red-tape, and the result was that Parliament always gave, in the case of the Auxiliary Forces, who had a local habitation, a greater latitude than was allowed to the Regular Forces. For instance, the capitation grant was paid to the commanding officer of the battalion. Parliament simply said, "Produce us a certificate that you have a man" [Several Hon. MEMBERS: An efficient man.] Well, he would say an efficient man. "Produce us a certificate," Parliament said, "that you have got an efficient man, and then you can spend your capitation grant, and you have very large latitude indeed." He thought that had worked well on the whole. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that the latitude allowed to commanding officers had not been abused. In framing their Bill they had to consider that not only past practice, but principle, made it necessary that they should allow a certain amount of latitude, as had been done in the case of the Volunteers, to those who were responsible for the administration and training of the Territorial Force. They had framed their Bill in such a fashion as recognised that principle, but they had done something more. They had gone a certain length in the direction which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked in making the control of Parliament more effective than it was in the case of the Volunteer Force, He would have attached more weight to the criticism of his hon. friend had he not observed that he had an Amendment on the Paper to get rid of the powers of the County Associations: his real objection was to the Associations. He was in favour of the old system, which left to the commanding officer still greater latitude than they proposed to give to the associations.
  *MR. MCCRAE: I do think the County Associations are quite unnecessary, but I am considering this matter purely from the financial standpoint, given the necessity for the Associations.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would only say that his hon. friend was not strongly biassed in favour of the Associations. When they came to see how the principle had been applied in the Bill, it was necessary to remember that they took the view, and he thought the majority of the House took the view, that the local association, properly administered, was a useful piece of machinery for the purposes of administering, as distinguished from training, these forces. At present, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, when a Volunteer corps went to war the administration rested with the commanding officer; there was no provision for maintaining them from their base. It had no administration. Its administration rested entirely with the Commanding Officer. The Government were trying to get the force into a better shape by separating the business of administration from that of command and training. They proposed to hand over the administrative business to the Associations and the command and training to the proper officers. They had borne in mind that Parliament had always insisted upon the principle that very large latitude should be left to the commanding officers of Volunteers. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the Government had adhered to that principle, but they had increased the control of Parliament by insisting that more particulars should be given by the associations than were at present given by the commanding officers of Volunteers. In the paper which had been circulated in answer to the question—how did they propose to carry out the finance?—it did not represent a formal Estimate—it would be seen that the Government took three possible ways into consideration. They had rejected the lump sum plan and the present Volunteer system of capitation allowance; and they had adopted a modification of the Volunteer system which would give them a much better and more stringent system than existed at the present time. They proposed to ask for the certificate of the general and of the brigadier also as to the efficiency of the units and of the

  1681
  men who composed them. That condition would produce greater stringency than existed under the present system. They had adopted a system which, he thought, was much more intelligent than the present one, because it was based upon the production of results, on the efficiency of the corps and the men comprising them, whereas under the present, system they gave the capitation grant and allowed unlimited latitude as to how it was to be applied. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had invited another place to make alterations in the Bill which would produce what he considered very material results. In that other place there were very eminent military authorities, and no doubt they would give the Bill thoroughly impartial consideration. But it was not very helpful to invite them to make changes unless they were prepared to go a great deal more into detail than his right hon. friend had done. His right hon. friend had taken exception to what he had called the want of the same financial control as there was in the case of the Regular Army. Did he really mean that they were to repeal the principle, on which Parliament had proceeded for years, of leaving a certain latitude to the Volunteers? If that was so, he thought that had been answered by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the latitude was to be left to the commanding officers or to the County Associations. Was the money to be received and spent by the County Associations or by the commanding officers? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the money was to be paid by the County Association and accounted for by it.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that was not quite so. The money was divided into two parts, and if the right hon. Gentleman looked at the section he would see that if they wanted an establishment grant that would be paid by the County Association. But a capitation grant would be paid by the colonel of the force, but they would not take a certificate except, from the County Associations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was not quite his point. His point was not as to who would give the certificates, but who was going to receive and spend the money. The right hon. Gentleman had said the money was to be received and spent by the County Association, but in answer to the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean he said he had no real wish that the colonel commanding the regiment should not have the same power as before. He therefore asked whether the colonel commanding would have the same power of spending money.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that all the money was to be paid to the associations, and the associations would spend the money. The associations would have to produce the certificates. No doubt, when they got far enough down, the colonel of the corps must to some extent handle the money, but he would be accountable to the association, and the association would have to account for him. They substituted the associations for the old commanding officers. In that way they introduced a much more searching system of financial control than now existed, because they would call for certificates from independent generals and brigadiers as to the efficiency of the unit. Their purpose had been to introduce a system of finance which would be more stringent, but would adhere to the principle of leaving latitude to the local administration. The right hon. baronet had referred to doleful instances of things that had come to light under the searching investigation of the Public Accounts Committee. But they would come to light still more readily under the Government's system, because there would be a much more efficient check. It had been said that enough money had not been taken for adjutants. At the present time there were twenty or thirty Volunteer battalions who had adjutants of a voluntary character, and he hoped that system would grow. But he supposed that there would be about 280 adjutants at the outside.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: That is not the present number.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was not dealing with the present system. He was

  1683
  referring to the number of adjutants there would be in this force of 300,000 men.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to break up a large number of the existing units. Would he say how many units would be established in the new Territorial Army?
  MR. HALDANEsaid the whole of the figures were given in the estimates.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether it was proposed at once to get rid of a large number of battalions in order to reduce the number of units in the way suggested in the Estimates.
  MR. HALDANEsaid his hon. friend the Financial Secretary had aleady explained that there must be a transition period. As the existing force diminished, the other would grow, and that process would be worked out gradually and must occupy some time. The number of adjutants they should require was 280. and he had the details which he could give if it was thought necessary. It was perhaps enough to say that having given that figure, any Member of the House could make his own calculations. As regarded the camp allowance, later in the debate his hon. friend, who had great experience in these matters, would make a statement. As regarded the allowances for food and other matters the calculations had been made, not by members of the Army Council merely, not by soldiers who did not understand the Volunteers, but by the most skilled Volunteer officers who worked out their calculations on the best information they could get. The House might take it from him that the accounts had been arrived at, not with any intention of concealing anything, not not with any intention of putting forward estimates which would afterwards have to be exceeded, but upon the footing that they were endeavouring to put before the House a fair answer to the question, "What is the largest sum you are likely to spend?" and they had taken the estimate upon awar footing. That had been complained of, but they would have had a great deal more complaint if they had taken it on a peace footing.
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question
  1684
  as to extending to the County Associations financial and administrative control over the Regular forces.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the expenses of the associations and other matters would be purely incidental. If the associations were asked to undertake regular military duties the financial system would have to be extended. The question of the bounties did not come into this Resolution at all.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would like to ask hon. Gentlemen who had listened to the debate and the explanations of the Government whether they really understood what financial control the House of Commons would be able to exercise in future. Were the printed explanations really worth the paper they were printed on? What Parliamentary control would there be in future over this very important and growing part of our military expenditure? The Secretary of State assumed that, if he applied to the Territorial Army the same system of finance that had been in the past applied to the Volunteers, he would not be open to criticism. But he must remember that the new Territorial Army was going to be something altogether different from the old Volunteers. In the first place, the Territorial Army was to include a considerable portion of the old Militia, and the audit of the accounts of the old Militia had always been on the strictest Army basis, and was not subject to the exceptions and limitations which applied to the Volunteers. The War Secretary said, "You must allow the commanding officers of Volunteer units considerable latitude, and if you attempt to exercise over them the kind of control that you exercise over the finances of the Regular Army, you will make the working of this scheme impossible." But it now appeared that the latitude was not to be allowed to the commanding officers, but to the County Associations, and all the correspondence which might have gone on between the commanding officers and the War Office, would now have to go on between the commanding officers and the associations. Parliament therefore, would, have no control to see that the money it voted was expended on the objects for which it was voted.

  1685
  The Financial Secretary had sat for many years on the Public Accounts Committee, and it had been his pleasure to sit with him for a short time on that body. He wondered what the hon. Gentleman thought of the finance of this Army scheme. He had written a memorandum, he had made a speech, but he had not given them his opinion. He would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman, whose intervention in the debates in behalf of financial control had not been infrequent, and whose opinions were on record, approved of the system proposed to be established under this Bill. What was to happen? He did not speak of payments for training. They, he understood, would be added in some way to the expenses of the Regular Forces. That was perfectly satisfactory, and was a change of importance, as the hon. Gentleman had rightly said. He was not dealing with that or criticising it. He was speaking only of the money to be paid to the County Associations. He ventured to say that Parliament would have no control over that expenditure, and would not be able to say whether it had been devoted to the purposes for which it had been voted. The money would be audited, no doubt; but the Parliamentary audit to which they attached importance was not merely an audit which showed that there were vouchers for every item of expenditure, but it was an audit which showed that the money had gone to the objects for which Parliament had voted it. That they would not see under this Bill. There was no provision for it. What was the position under Clause 3? It was that the association should submit to the Army Council his statement of necessary requirements, and all the payments by the Army Council to the association were to be made on the basis of the statement of requirements in so far as they were approved by the Army Council. Then Sub-section 3, which the right hon. Gentleman said was very stringent in its terms, and which he pointed to as setting up a special safeguard, said—
  "All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Army Council."
  In the first place let him observe that the money might be spent "otherwise," pro-
  1686
  vided the Army Council gave its written consent, without Parliament knowing anything whatever about it. Where was the Parliamentary control? The Financial Secretary had given them some idea of the forme. They would pay the allowance per efficient man, for instance, to the County Association. The estimate was based on the assumption that they had so many Yeomanry and so many Infantry within the county. What control had Parliament to see that the money went to the Infantry or to the Yeomanry? Why could not the County Association take the money voted for the Infantry and apply it to the Yeomanry, or take the money voted for the Yeomanry and apply it to the Infantry? The County Association might spend the money for any purpose specified in an approved statement. They did not need any regulations: the Bill said that the County Association might devote the money paid to them to any of the purposes approved by the Army Council; Parliament had no control, and even if there were regulations, Parliament would have no control over those regulations. The money which Parliament intended for Infantry might be spent on Yeomanry, or vice versa. Suppose there were three specific purposes, and a sum of money was allotted in respect of each. There was no reason why the association should not spend the whole of the money on one of those purposes, and neglect the other two. As the Bill stood, he did not think that oven the consent of the Army Council was necessary; but without consent the association might do exactly what they pleased with the money.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,)pointed out that all the money paid to the County Associations was subject to the regulations under the Act, and those regulations were subject to the consent of the Treasury.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not agree with that reading of the Bill. As the clause stood no regulations were necessary, and the associations could do as he had stated. With the consent of the Army Council these associations could do exactly what they pleased with the money which Parliament voted. Parliament would have

  1687
  voted the money, the associations would proceed to spend it, and the control of Parliament would be gone. What audit would there be of these funds? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that they could not have a stricter audit than they had at present, but he did not think the present control was at all satisfactory. The Reports of the Public Accounts Committee showed that there had been misappropriations—he meant, of course, honest misappropriations—of money which Parliament had voted. But that was not all. Was the present, system satisfactory from the point of view of the Volunteers? He had had to bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the case of the commanding officer of a Worcestershire battalion who had been surcharged for the first time for a particular expenditure on behalf of his battalion, and he had been made personally liable for it. He had appealed to the Secretary for War to relieve him of that charge. Under the present system they exercised a spasmodic, irregular, and arbitrary control, and that was not good for the Volunteers or for the maintenance of the control of Parliament over expenditure. He contended that if Parliament was to have any control over expenditure they must appropriate the money within certain limits to particular objects and guard against its transference from one object to another. With regard to the form of the Votes, the accepted rule of procedure was that if any serious change was contemplated the approval of the Public Accounts Committee should be obtained before the Vote was presented to Parliament. He understood the Secretary for War to say that that would be done in this case.
  MR. HALDANEassented.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that admission. Might he suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should go a little further? What they all wanted to know in regard to the Territorial Army was what it would cost when it was in working order. Could they not have the whole cost of the Territorial Army put into one Vote? Hitherto the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers had been put into one Vote, but the right hon. Gentleman excluded
  1688
  stores, artillery, ammunition, and things of that kind, which had hitherto been charged on other Votes, and he did not propose to include them in the Vote for the Territorial Army. He knew that that was done with a desire to give the House the fullest possible information, but he was convinced that the very trouble that had been taken to inform the House often only succeeded in misleading it. In the case of the Somaliland Expedition, for instance, there was every desire to give the House all information, but owing to the way the Estimates were cast, the Government never could give the House an estimate of the actual cost of that expedition by itself. He thought that was most unsatisfactory, and he therefore invited the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of collecting the whole cost of the Territorial Army into the same Vote. He wished also to say a word or two about the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to tell them what the cost of the new Territorial Army would be, and he had given an estimate of the running cost, but he had given no estimate of the initial cost. He did not know whether hon. Members realised the kind of capital expenditure involved in the organisation of the Army. He was quite certain that if this scheme was to be made effective, involving as it did a much more extensive use of depots, very large capital expenditure must be incurred. And what was going to be the position in regard to the Volunteer drill-halls? Would they all be handed over free, or would the debt due upon them be considered a charge on future capitation grants? He understood that when they robbed the old sinking fund they did so in order to wipe out the Volunteer debts, and in order that in future there should be no such debts. They were now told that new drill-halls, could not be built for the new Territorial Army by the Government, althought they might make grants for that purpose through the County Associations. That reply had left the whole question in a state of confusion. If the taking over of the debts on the drill-halls was not done with the object of freeing them from debt, what was the object? Why should they now restart the system of borrowing money where new drill-halls were required? He confessed that even after what had been said by the Secretary of State for

  1689
  War he retained his scepticism as to the value of the estimates which had been given. He did not believe it would be possible to work the scheme even for the services at present contemplated within the limits of the estimated expenditure. He was quite certain that if they were going to have a territorial system the amount of money which they would have to spend was in no way fully indicated by the Estimates. In regard to depots and drill-halls he pressed particularly for an answer. In the matter of depots, the right hon. Gentleman in the early stage might be able to scrape along, though they were at present inconvenient and insufficient, but the expenditure on new depots would grow just in proportion as the scheme proceeded and succeeded, and thereby a great capital obligation would be incurred for which the right hon. Gentleman had made no provision, and which he was leaving others to provide when they came after him.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that the depots would be for the third battalions.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the depots, in view of what had been said by the Inspector-General of Recruiting, provided proper accommodation for the third battalions. Was it the kind of accommodation which would make the third battalions respect themselves, and respected in the eyes of the nation? Another point to which he wished to direct attention had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, but it had not been touched upon by the Financial Secretary. The Secretary of State for War definitely pledged himself last night that the position of the Yeomanry should be substantially as comfortable under the new scheme as it had been in the past. The right hon. Gentleman said he meant to have only one standard of comfort in future, and that standard must be the 5s. 6d. standard of the Yeomanry. He had indicated that he could do it more cheaply, but it was to be the 5s. 6d. standard. The right hon. Gentleman might be successful in getting 5s. 6d. worth for 4s., but that meant a great levelling up for which he saw no provision made. That was one of many points at which he believed the scheme
  1690
  would break down. The only chance for the financial prophecies not proving false would be that the Territorial Army should never come into existence.
  *MR. GODDARDsaid he was very much disturbed by the line the debate had taken in regard to the financing of the Territorial Army, and hoped some clearer assurances would be given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman than it had yet received that there would be no lowering of the Parliamentary control over the finance. He confessed that the Secretary of State for War had not made that satisfactory to his mind yet. It seemed to him that there would be large sums paid out over which Parliament would have no control at all—he meant sums other than those which were being paid out now under the head of the Volunteer Force. If Parliament was justified in one thing more than another, it was in protesting against any withdrawal of its right to control the finances of the different Departments. He felt doubt on this subject on account of a remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He understood him to say that if more confidence had been placed in the military authorities, and if they had not been supervised quite so much in the past, there would have been greater economy.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had saved at least £1,000,000 this year by adopting that plan, and the control of Parliament was as great as ever.
  *MR. GODDARDsaid he was not disputing that fact. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that that might be carried out to a much greater degree than at present, and that if the military men had more liberty greater economy could be effected. He was very doubtful about that himself. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee of long standing he did not think that that statement was justified by experience. Cases had constantly come under the observation of that Committee which did not seem to warrant the suggestion that there would be greater economy if there was loss observation and less control by the Audit Department. More control and not less was wanted than at present. It appeared to him that under the financial

  1691
  arrangements of the Bill there was an exaggerated amount of virement—the power of transferring money voted for one purpose to another purpose with the sanction of the Treasury. Up to the present time that form of transfer could only be done with the sanction of the Treasury, but under the financial proposals of the Bill the same power was given to the Army Council. Personally he had always said that he had great doubts as to the value of the principle of virement. It involved one of those practices which he had always considered dangerous, and it seemed to him most undesirable to extend the principle.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid it vas a great comfort to him that such financial authorities as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had as much doubt about the financial arrangements of the Bill as he had himself. He had endeavoured to follow the speeches of the Secretary of State for War, and he had read the numerous Papers which had been issued, but he had not been able to make head or tail of the finance of the scheme. In taking that view of what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh called a Chinese puzzle he felt that he was in extremely good company. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the best course would be to withdraw the Bill. As a practical man he must recognise that they were wasting their time to a considerable extent. The constitution of the County Associations had not been discussed, and the scheme was being forced through by the guillotine. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that it was quite impossible to think that the Bill could pass in its present form. If the view that the Bill should be withdrawn did not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman, he would like more enlightenment as to the finance of the measure. The scheme had been launched with promises of economy on the present system, which cost £4,500,000. The new scheme was to cost £2,800,000, but already an approximate estimate showed that there were additions of about £625,000. Anyone who analysed this additional cost to the estimates would arrive at the conclusion so clearly stated by two hon.
  1692
  Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, that the amount had been under-estimated to a very considerable extent. The camp allowance and the supplement for rations and staff was put at £170,000; but was it possible that after the declarations and undertakings of the Secretary of State as to the comfort that was to be provided for the Territorial Army—including the Volunteers, Yeomanry and Militia—that anything like £170,000 would be adequate for that purpose? As to the adjutants for the Territorial Forces, he was exceedingly glad and grateful that the Secretary of State had given way on that point. His conviction was that the withdrawal of the adjutants provided by the Regular Army would have been the greatest blow that could be imagined for the Auxiliary Forces. But he very much doubted whether the amount allotted for the adjutants, £140,000, was anything like sufficient the original estimate was £210,000 for the units of cavalry and infantry; hut nothing was said as to artillery and engineers; and greater importance was now attached to field artillery than even to cavalry and infantry. The House would notice a very serious statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in referring to this matter that day. The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that the present units would be no guide to the number of units of the Territorial Force. That meant that all the past expense and labour incurred by commanding officers in providing drill halls, ranges, and exercise grounds would be thrown away, while many of the units would be disbanded, or amalgamated with others. At the least, the lessening of the responsibility of commanding officers would seriously damage the efficiency of what was now the Volunteer Force. If the right hon. Gentleman had consulted commanding officers all over the country he would have found that there was nothing more advantageous to the Volunteer Force than the responsibility of the commanding officers; and if that responsibility was to be transferred to the County Associations a very different state of things would soon prevail. No provision was made for an adequate staff of sergeant instructors necessary for training. He had endeavoured to obtain an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the sergeant instructors would be retained, but he had got no satisfactory answer.

  1693
  He maintained that the new scheme could not be made to work unless a full and ample proportion of sergeant instructors was given to each battalion. As to the uniforms, under the original plan it was only proposed to give one field-service dress; but not only was an out-walking dress required, but a brigade dress; and it was impossible to suppose that the Territorial Army would be content with less. There were many other items which the right hon. Gentleman had neglected to take into account, as to which, he thought, Parliament ought to be informed before it passed the Bill. For instance, was the pay of fourteen divisional generals to be charged to the Territorial Army?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman looked at the Paper 3,296, page 5, and at the first two columns at the left hand he would find the information.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he did not see anything there about fourteen divisional generals. It was just possible that the Under-Secretary for India, having sufficient leisure, had been able to evolve that, but he had not been able to find it.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman might take it from him that the full salary of a major general for each division was provided for in the Estimates.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was much obliged to the right hon Gentleman for his explanation. He complained further as to the absence of details in regard to rations and equipments and said there was nothing in the Estimates in regard to capital expenditure for drill halls, ranges, and exercise grounds. There was no doubt that much pressure would be brought to bear on the War Office and the Secretary of State to enlarge the Estimates to an enormous extent to carry the scheme through.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he was sure that no one present would grudge in any way the time spent on this important discussion; and he could assure the House that there was no reluctance on the part of the occupants of the Treasury Bench to give
  1694
  information to the House which would enable it to exercise its chief function of controlling expenditure. He thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean sometimes devoted his manifold talents to scaring his own friends somewhat unnecessarily, and that he had done so on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the provision for clothing was ridiculously underestimated; and the House would pardon him if he went somewhat fully into the details of that particular item. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to what he apparently believed to be inconsistent Answers given by the Secretary of State for War to Questions put during the present session. The Answers were all correct, but they showed the difficulty of dealing with particular items apart from the general scheme. The scheme must be considered as a whole, and they must have perfectly clear in their own minds what uniforms they were going to give to the Territorial Force and what they were going to pay for that purpose. It was proposed to give two suits of uniform to every one of the 160,000 men of the infantry branch of the Territorial Army to start with. The first uniform, known as the service dress, would cost 66s. 10d., and that included jacket, trousers, putties, cap, and greatcoat. It did not include the cost of a pair of boots, but the cost of soleing a pair of boots, the reason being that as the Territorial soldier would only come out for fourteen days training it could not be expected that the State should provide him with a pair of boots; but it was reasonable that the pair of boots he used in civil life should be resoled it the cost of the State. For the second suit there was an allowance of 30s. The cost of providing uniforms for each man was, therefore, £4 16s. 10d., and the total estimated expenditure for the 160,000 men was £780,000.
  SIR HOWAED VINCENT: Whose estimate is it? Whitechapel's or the Army Clothing Department's?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it was the estimate of the Army Clothing Department, and from his own experience he thought it could be done a great deal cheaper.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Sweating!
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that £720,000 was provided in the Estimate for clothing, or £60,000 less than the apparent cost of £780,000. The deficit was explained by the fact that some of the articles—belts for instance—would not need renewing during the four years of service. It was said that the provision of £140,000 a year for the Regular adjutants for the Territorial Force was an under-estimate of the cost. On the contrary, after providing for 280 adjutants at £420 each, it would leave £20,000 for unforeseen contingencies. But a much more important point was the control which was to be exercised by the House over the expenditure of the money provided for the Territorial Force. He recognised the overwhelming importance of the full control of expenditure by the House; and if he thought there was any lowering of that control under the Bill he would not be there advocating it. The words of Clause 3 were clear on that point They provided that the County Association could not vary the application of the money paid to them, even though they had the written consent of the Army Council, without the approval of the Treasury. The words of the Bill were—
  "All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified on the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Army Council."
  If the words which it was proposed to leave out were omitted the County Associations could spend money on the various objects for which it was voted without any consent of the Army Council, but the moment they put in the words—
  "Subject to the regulations of this Act,"
  which brought in the Treasury, they would realise that they could not vary the application of the money. He had often from the opposite side of the House been as jealous as any hon. Gentleman opposite that the expenditure put at the disposal of the Departments of State should be fully known, and as fully under the control of the House as possible. He believed the words to which he had drawn attention met all proper requirements of the House. He believed they met every objection put forward by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, and all
  1696
  he could say was that even if the right hon. Gentleman's most stringent conditions were not observed it was unquestionable that the control over the new Territorial Force would be infinitely greater than the present control over the commanding officers of the Volunteer Force. He had endeavoured to make clear those two most important points, and trusted he had succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the transfer of depots and of the maintenance of drill halls. The right hon. Gentlemen would remember that at the beginning of this year the Government took £500,000, which enabled them to take over from the Loans Commissioners the mortgages of the drill halls. If those drill halls came under the control of the County Associations the mortgages would be wiped off, which would give the drill halls to them free of debt, and out of the funds placed at their disposal they would have to maintain those drill halls just in the same way as some economical—and he used the word advisedly—Volunteer corps managed to maintain their drill halls out of the money they derived from the State. The right hon. Gentleman would understand that the depots did not come within the Territorial Forces at all. They were outside because they were raised for the purpose of training battalions. He hoped he had made these matters clear and that the House would now come to a decision.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was very much puzzled with regard to certain points connected with the financial position of the County Associations, and, therefore, desired to put one or two propositions to the right hon. Gentleman who might signify his assent, or dissent, by a motion of his head. In the first place, he understood that these County Associations were to have nothing to do with the settlement of the pay and emoluments of the officers and men of the Territorial Force. Was that so?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that that was the time to make speeches and not to cross-examine Ministers.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he had only put it in that way to save time. It was a very important point, because it touched the financial portion of the

  1697
  scheme. He hoped it was true that the County Associations would have no control over the Regular Forces until some fresh development took place. He hoped it was also true that they would have nothing to do with discipline, and that it would be absolutely out of the power of any County Association in any sense whatever to send the hat round for any expenditure on behalf of the force. If that he so, the County Associations would draw every penny of income which they administered through the Army Council, and with the consent of the Army Council, and he understood the Army Council would have to go through and assent to every item of the expenditure. He therefore assumed that the Army Council was really acting under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was unable to put it so shortly. The Secretary of State was only a member of the Army Council, but in another way he was responsible to Parliament, and in that sense no doubt he would control the Army Council.
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the right hon. and gallant Member could now only deal with the financial question and not with the general objects of the Bill.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the powers of the County Associations seemed to touch the financial question more closely than the Government were willing to allow. He understood that the County Associations were to be empowered to put out contracts for the supply of the different necessities for the Territorial soldiers in their jurisdiction, and for drill halls and rifle ranges, but he did not understand what security they had to give to the contractors. They had no capital moneys of their own and he did not know whose credit they had to pledge.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Loans Commissioners.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether that was sufficient.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it could not, under the clause in the Bill, be done without the assent of the Army Council.
  *MR. SPEAKERreminded the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that that was the time to make speeches, and not to ask questions. He also reminded him that the House was now discussing the financial Resolution; that the position of the County Associations was not now before the House. This Resolution referred to the provision and payment of money to be devoted by Parliament to the Territorial Forces.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYexpressed his regret that he should have contravened the rules of order. He would pass from the County Associations and allude to a question with which he had been closely concerned, namely, that which arose at the end of the debate on the previous evening on the question of camp allowance. He desired to put forward what he understood to be the pledged position of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the cavalry of the Territorial Army when in camp would not suffer in their substantial comforts through any reduction of pay. He would not, he thought, be far wrong when he put the difference in the cost of those substantial comforts at 3s. per man, and on that estimate, on the territorial cavalry, which was to be 50,000, the right hon. Gentleman would have to spend £7,000. If the right hon. Gentleman had to give those substantial comforts to the remaining 250,000 of the Territorial Force, to carry out his pledge he would have to spend £37,500.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not think that the speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had yet received a reply. There was the question of the ordinary service dress. The Under-Secretary for India had told them that the cost of the new dress for the Infantry, including great coat, helmet, &c, would be 66s. 10d., and that 9d. would be given as boot allowance. The right hon. Gentleman, when asked a question on the 8th April by the hon. Member for Darlington, stated that the cost of the new suit, including great coat, helmet, cap, putties, &c, would be £2 17s. 3d. The right hon. Gentleman's

  1699
  colleague had just said that it would cost 66s. 10d.
  MR. HALDANE: For both suits.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he certainly had not understood that it was for both suits, but only for the new service dress, In the revised Estimate the cost of the walking-out dress was £113,000 for 300,000 men. That worked out at 7s. per walking-out dress, which was an absurd sum. He appealed to hon. Members whether 7s. for a walking-out dress for any member of a Volunteer Force was not a perfectly grotesque figure. The upkeep of the Service dress was an annual expense. What was the capital cost going to be? Why was it not put into the Estimate?
  MR. HALDANE: It is not wanted.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid they had settled to amalgamate the forces in the next four years. Every article of costume, barring belts and, perhaps, haversacks, would have to be replaced, and that would mean a large capital outlay. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give 300,000 men a walking-out dress which would cost 7s. per man. Everybody knew that the walking-out dress of a Volunteer up to the present had cost anything from £2 up to four guineas. It was not the fault of the Secretary of State that he could not explain the matter. It was utterly misleading to put in the Estimate that they were going to supply 300,000 men with a walking-out dress that was to cost 7s. per man. The Estimate would have to be revised. They had already had a second edition of it, and the sooner they got a third edition the better able they would be to ascertain what was likely to be the approximate cost. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to answer the question of the hon. Member opposite who wanted to know what the parade dress was going to be. That was an important point with a direct financial bearing. The right hon. Gentleman had announced that night, for the first time, although many questions had been previously asked, that the number of Infantry battalions in the new territorial scheme was to be 168. That involved the disbandment of scores of existing Volunteer
  1700
  regiments. Suppose they had, in a given area, five battalions, two of which were strong, and three required to be disbanded. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to merge those men, with different uniforms, into the new battalion? If that was done, it would make the corps ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them frankly what he meant to do on this question. There were two items which the right hon. Gentleman said did not come within, the scope of the Resolution. The first item was the depots, and the second was the bounties. The outlay which would be necessary on the depots in the next five or six years would perhaps amount to millions of money. Many of the depots were in an in sanitary condition and. badly constructed. They would have to be put right, and some would have to be rebuilt substantially, owing to the requirements of the Territorial Force. That was a great outlay, for which this measure was directly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Resolution did not cover the bounties. He did not deny that, but it provided for all the expenses of raising and maintaining the Territorial Force. He had always understood that the bounties would come within this provision; he now understood they did not. They had always been, told that the fundamental principle of the Bill was to make two lines—the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. The persons to whom the bounties were to be paid were boys of seventeen or eighteen years of age, who would certainly not be members of the Regular Army, and, if they were not members of the Territorial Army, then the scheme between the two Lines broke down. They had 60,000 or 70,000 persons to whom they had to pay bounties, but who were neither in the Territorial Force, nor members of the Regular Army. Although that might not affect the finance with which they were now concerned, it had a remarkable bearing on the general statement of the Secretary of State. And what about the storage of equipments? They were told that day for the first time that an immense number of the battalions were to be disbanded. He dared say that might be right, but it would have a decided financial effect on the question of storage of equipments. At the present moment small battalions had small store houses for rifles, and so

  1701
  on. If they disbanded those small battalions, as would occur very likely in a country town, they risked not getting recruits in future for the Territorial Force. During the last dozen years there had been Volunteer Corps disbanded for inefficiency, or some other reason, but if the righthon. Gentleman cared to inquire of those concerned, he would find that such was the bitterness of feeling in those places where the regiments had been disbanded, that, ever since, it had been impossible to obtain any recruits for new corps. Besides causing bitterness and heartburning by disbanding the corps, they would have to take over the small store houses, while in the large towns they would have to make the store houses bigger. That was a substantial outlay, for which the right hon. Gentleman had made no provision whatever. They had heard three speeches from the Treasury Bench. He thought it would have been courteous to the supporters of the Government if some reply had been given to their criticisms as to the levelling up of the standard of the territorial infantry to that now prevailing in the Yeomanry. It was a big subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his pledge it would cost a great deal of money, the standard of comfort, whatever its costs, now prevailing in the Yeomanry, would be in future the standard of comfort for the infantry of the Territorial Force. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that the standard of the mess? He presumed that he did, because that was one of the elements of the measure of comfort. Then another standard was the number of men accommodated per camp. If inquiries were made, it would be found that the space allotted in each camp for the Militia or Volunteers was considerably smaller than that usually allotted to the Yeomanry, and the tent accommodation must be enormously enlarged in consequence. That was another thing omitted from the Estimate. In the original scheme there was an extraordinary provision, which he thought a very dangerous one, that only 50 per cent. of the sergeants and those below sergeant's rank were to have separation allowance when in camp. That could not stand. If they picked out one half of the sergeants and corporals for separation allowance they would create an impossible state of things. They could not penalise men in that way; they could not
  1702
  make separation allowance a good conduct badge. In the case of two men, both long service men, both married, they had to choose between those two to whom they would give the separation allowance. Such a proceeding would inflict incalculable damage on the morale of the corps, and the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind either to take away the separation allowance altogether, or to give it to all those who, under given conditions, would be entitled to receive it. There was no provision for rifle clubs or rifle ranges. A rifle range had to be near to the village in which the members of the club lived, and it was a very difficult thing to provide even a miniature range. The Government had made no provision for that at all. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman cordially for having put £140,000 down for Regular Adjutants. That item in itself meant the efficiency of thousands of men. He wished to know if that £140,000 was the only item involved. In the original scheme the right hon. Gentleman told them that the idle solicitor would be able to do the Adjutant's work, and he contemplated withdrawing all the Regular Adjutants and adding them to the Regular Army so as to reduce the shortage of officers. He now proposed to preserve largely the efficiency of the Volunteers by maintaining the professional Adjutant, but the shortage of officers for thy Regular Army remained. That shortage had to be made good; it would involve a fresh charge upon the Army funds, and he would like to know the cost of that item. There were two more omissions in regard to rifles and guns. The House were aware that the rifles were being converted, and this year one-seventh of the rifles to be used by the Territorial Force were being converted. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to convert all these rifles before they became obsolete, he would have to spend a great deal of money during the next financial year. He hoped he was not going to take seven years to accomplish that. Therefore he would probably have to provide for another five sevenths or six-sevenths of the total cost of conversion next year, and that was totally unprovided for. The same with the guns. The artillery Volunteers were to be armed with the fifteen-pounders, and that gun had also to be converted, and only £10,000 was provided for the purpose. That would

  1703
  only convert thirty-six guns, and 400 would remain to be dealt with. Consequently less than 10 per cent. of the total guns would be converted this year. It was ridiculous to suppose that they were going to take ten years for the conversion of those guns; therefore he assumed that during the next financial year they would have to provide £90,000 to convert the rest. There were other serious omissions from the revised Estimate, such as the bad accommodation in the depots and provision for bounties. There was no reference to storage for equipment, camp and separation allowances, rifle clubs and ranges, the extra cost for officers caused by retaining the adjutants, and service and walking out dress. He would not go into the matter of control because that had been dealt with by previous speakers who had shown the gravity of the position. The distinction between audit and appropriation had not been clearly explained. Even the audit presented very grave difficulties. No rough and ready line could be drawn between administrative expenses and those incurred in camp. The control of the House of Commons over the accounts would be lost. In regard to the Yeomanry, every speaker had gone against the scheme, but they could not expect the Government to give way although, in his opinion, the Government ought to do so. The right hon. Gentleman was asked at Question time if he would submit the form of accounts to the Public
  Accounts Committee and had given a point-blank refusal.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid his right hon. friend was asked if he would refer to the Public Accounts Committee the Statement of Requirements recently issued, and he replied that that Paper was only a suggested form to help the discussion of this Bill. He stated that when the Bill had become law and the Estimates had been framed his Estimate would be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he was glad to hear that statement, and he hoped the Public Accounts Committee would make a recommendation as to the laying of the rules before Parliament and as to the surrender of surpluses, to which no reference had been made. Whatever course was taken the control of Parliament could not be complete until the House of Commons had the right to discuss the rules. Unless the House of Commons was given an opportunity of understanding the real proposals of the Government and the cost involved he ventured to say that the confusion and chaos of the finance of this Army scheme would be considerably increased.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 188.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brodie, H. C.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cowan, W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cremer, William Randal

  Astbury, John Meir

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crooks, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Barker, John

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rset

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Duckworth, James

  Bell, Richard

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Billson, Alfred

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Elibank, Master of

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clough, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Brace, William

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitchapel)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, S. E.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

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

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Simon, John Allsebrool

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sinclair, Rt, Hon. John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hart-Davies T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Steadman, W. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Mond, A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murray, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tomkinson, James

  Holt, Richard Dinning

  Partington, Oswald

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Paul, Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Verney, F. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, J. Winford (Pembroke

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Richardson, A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robinson, S.

  Winfrey, R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rowlands, J.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr J. A. Pease.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  NOES.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Keswick, William

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bull, Sir William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Macpherson, J. T.

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

  Haddock, George R.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cave, George

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Coehrane Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  1706

  1707

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Bowles and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Seddon, J.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Shackleton, David James

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 3:
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHmoved to leave out the words, "for Army services." he explained that the object of the Amendment was to make it as clear as possible that the money voted by the House of Commons should be applied to the purposes for which they were granted. It appeared to him that under the scheme they were going to have considerable resort to the system of capitation grants, and therefore it was most necessary and desirable that they should have as many particulars as they could get in regard to the sums to be voted. Notwithstanding what had been said in the previous debate the impression still remained on his mind that it was the intention of the Government to ask the House of Commons to vote a large aggregate sum, and out of that to make grants to the various County Associations. He failed to see any necessity for the words which he proposed to omit from the clause. If the obligation was cast upon the Army Council to ask the House to vote several sums of money they must lay definitely before the House their reasons for asking for those sums. He felt certain that the purposes of the Act would be better carried out if Parliament was asked to vote definite sums than if the finance of the County Associations came out of an aggregate sum. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would restrict the action of the Army Council in such a manner as to prevent money voted for one purpose being applied to another. The Amendment, he thought, went some way in compelling the Army Council to state definitely for what purpose the money was required. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words for Army services.'"— (Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he did not think the adoption of the Amendment would really further the view which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. The Army Council would have no power over moneys voted by Parliament except those for Army services. As the right hon. Gentleman was well aware, there was no general Vote under the Army Estimates which the authorities at the War Office could use for any general purposes. Possibly the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view might be made the subject of an Amendment at a later stage, but nothing would be gained by insisting on the Amendment now before the Committee.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. COURTHOPEmoved to omit the words "in the opinion of the Army Council." He did not think it should rest with the Army Council or any central body to say what should be treated as necessary expenditure in connection with the discharge of the County Associations' duties. It was essentially a matter to be decided upon the spot. He did not mean that the central body should have no control at all, but it was impossible for a central body to decide exactly what was necessary in this or that place or what would be spent here and what would be saved there. Under the present system, as far as the Volunteers were concerned, the expenditure out of public funds was strictly defined, and the result was that in many districts a large sum

  1709
  find to be raised by subscription or else provided by the company officers in order to give the men a training at all and comply with the regulations as to efficiency. If, however, under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme they were going to have a democratic Army, he maintained that that Army should be paid on democratic lines and should not be dependent upon local subscriptions and good will or the generosity of the officers. To illustrate this, let them take a Volunteer company situated in a country district far from the battalion's headquarters. It had to be recruited from seven or eight different hamlets or villages and was served by one rifle range. It might or might not be in a central place, but at any rate it must be a long distance from some squad centres. The picture he was trying to draw was no exaggeration, for his own company was in that position. He had only one rifle range for his men, and in order to train them properly he had to bring them all in to drill. He could not drill them entirely in squads at their homes because for part of their training it was essential that the company should be brought together. It was impossible to expect men, whether they were shop assistants or agricultural labourers, at the end of their day's work to march four or five miles, and in some cases twelve miles, to do two hours drill and then march home again. The Government must provide such men with the means to convey them to and from their homes for drill. It was a necessary expenditure if the men were to be trained at all, but it was an expenditure which had not been recognised in the past, and would not in the future, if the expenditure was to be stereotyped by Army Council regulations. There were many other instances to which the same thing applied. It was quite impossible for the Army Council to appreciate all the difficulties of individual cases. The responsibility of the company officers would remain under the new system as it was now, and that alone would absolutely destroy any democratic principle which the Government wished to apply. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment, or at least give some satisfactory assurance that the whole of the necessary expenditure would be met by the Treasury, and that officers would in future be freed from the obli-
  1710
  gation of finding money to train and equip their men. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed:—
  "In page 4, line 26, to leave out the words in the opinion of the Army Council.'"— (Mr. Courthope.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that if the Bill passed the association for the county would send in to the Army Council an estimate of the amount of money it would probably want for the various corps under its jurisdiction for travelling and other charges. If the Army Council considered, on investigation, that it was a reasonable amount they would grant it. The object the hon. Member had in view would be attained by the clause as it stood; and it would not be helped in any way by leaving out the words suggested in his Amendment.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that he had given notice of a similar Amendment, but for quite other reasons than those mentioned by his hon. friend. The object he had in view was to secure that, when once the money had been voted, it should be spent, not as the Army Council might think proper, but as the House of Commons had decided it should be spent when it voted the money. What he was afraid of was that if these words were left in, after the money had been voted by Parliament there might be an inclination on the part of the Army Council of the day to spend it possibly in directions other than those already decided upon by Parliament; and therefore he thought that the words were unnecessary.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was one of those who had shared the doubt as to how far the scheme of the Bill would meet the requirements of sound financial control; but he was convinced that it was sounder than the scheme proposed by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member's proposal was, as he understood it, that the local associations should have the last word to say as to the allocation and expenditure of the money voted by Parliament.

  1711
  He regarded it as of importance that the last word should be with the Army Council, and that was what the words proposed to be left out secured. He therefore would oppose the Amendment. A right hon. Gentleman had come forward with a similar Amendment from the opposite point of view, with which he had the greatest possible sympathy, of maintaining the control of Parliament, but it seemed to him that it would have an effect contrary to what his right hon. friend desired. As the clause stood the County Association would have to justify their claims to the Army Council. The contradictory grounds on which this Amendment had been supported on the other side seemed to him absolutely fatal to it, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.
  MR. FORSTERdid not see why the words "in the opinion of the Army Council" were in the clause at all. As far as he could make out the reason was that it was intended that the views
  of the Army Council were to prevail over the views of the associations, and the Army Council was to have the last word as to the direction in which the money was to be expended. If these words were expunged, the clause would read perfectly naturally and reasonably as follows:—"The Army Council shall pay to an association, out of money voted by Parliament for Army services, such sums as are required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its powers and duties," and he could not see that the authority of the Army Council was weakened in any way by the Amendment. He thought the words which it was proposed to omit were redundant and might therefore well be left out.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200 Noes. 40. (Division List No. 189.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christehurch)

  Clynes, J. R,

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Aatbury, John Meir

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barker, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Crombie, John William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crooks, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hodge, John

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Billson, Alfred

  Duckworth, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hudson, Walter

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brace, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Brigg, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Buchanan, Thomas Rybura

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lamont, Norman

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gulland, John W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hardy, George A, (Suffolk)

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkBg'hs)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Maclean, Donald

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cleland, J. W.

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

  M'Callum, John M.

  M'Crae, George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Richardson, A.

  Thompson J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thorne, William

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tomkinson, James

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, George

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Morse, L. L.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wardle, George J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Murray, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nicholls, George

  Sears, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Seddon, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palme

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Partington, Oswald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Paul, Herbert

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton,

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  King Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cave, George

  Macpherson J. T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Collings, Rt. Hn J (Birmingham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Mr. Courthope and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  *VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid his object in moving to leave out the word "necessary" in order to insert the word "whole," so that the Army Council should pay to the association all the expenditure which it incurred, was to avert two dangers which would be present in the clause if it was left as it was. He felt that it was possible that the clerks in the War Office in examining the accounts sent in by the county associations might take a different view from that which the associations took of the word "necessary." He had had much correspondence with the War Office and knew that it was in the power of a subordinate to say that there was a warrant or an Army order which made it impossible that the item
  1714
  should be allowed. There was a story extant of how a small item involving sixpence led to an enormous amount of correspondence. An officer travelling abroad sent in an account in which the item of "Porter 6d." occurred. The memorandum was sent back with the remark that refreshment was not allowed to officers on this duty, and that sixpence could not be allowed for the "porter" which he claimed. The officer wrote back and said he had not had any refreshment, but the sixpence was spent on the porter who had conveyed his portmanteau from the station to the hotel. He was told that that should be returned as "porterage" and not as "porter," and in reply he pertinently

  1715
  asked whether if he took a cab, he should return the sum paid as "cabbage." There was a danger that these War Office vagaries would be repeated on what was thought to be necessary expenditure by the County Associations. There was the danger also of the Territorial Force being starved for money by the War Office which would be naturally influenced by the old soldiers at the top of the tree who considered that all expenditure was waste which was not expended on the regular forces. It was to avert these dangers that he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 27, to leave out the word 'necessary,' and to insert the word 'whole.'"—(Viscount Valentia.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BUCHANANwas understood to say the words in the clause were sufficient to meet the object the noble Lord had in view. The Secretary of State for War had definitely stated that the Army Council were prepared to bear, out of public funds, all such expenditure for the purpose of maintaining the Territorial Army.
  *VISCOUNT VALENTIA: Necessary in the opinion of the Army Council.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid certainly that must be so. He thought that would be sufficient guarantee for the future. It was essential that the Army Council should have some control over the demands of the County Associations, and hon. Members who had complained that the Government had not kept sufficient control over the expenditure would not grudge this control to the Army Council.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he did not think that what had been said met this Amendment, and unless some undertaking such as was suggested by the Amendment were given he was afraid it would come back to the old system of sending the hat round in various parts of the country in order to obtain that equipment which the Army Council thought unnecessary. The local conditions in various parts differed very greatly and what was
  1716
  thought necessary in one district for equipment would not be necessary in another. "Necessary" was a word of great elasticity, and what might be a necessity in the eyes of some might be a luxury in the eyes of others. He thought there should be a statement from the Front Bench to define the meaning of the word "necessary" in this connection. By accepting the Amendment the War Office would only be doing in effect what they had promised in principle, viz., was to bear the whole cost of carrying this scheme into effect. Those who had taken a great interest in the old Yeomanry and other voluntary forces might not care to extend the same patronage to the new Territorial Force, and it seemed to him that if only the bare necessities of the case were met these people might naturally say to themselves that the State having taken over the control entirely they must pay for it. The sources which had hitherto been open to various regiments would be closed, and when those regiments met together some might find themselves at a loss to equip themselves in the manner to which they had been accustomed. He supported the Amendment.
  *VISCOUNT VALENTIAafter the explanation of the hon. Gentleman opposite asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, but he hoped the Army Council would see that there was no lack of funds for the Territorial Army.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHmoved an Amendment to Sub-section 2, providing that the approval of the Treasury as well as the Army Council should be required for the statement of the requirements of an association considered as a basis for payments. He thought that both sides of the House were very nearly in accord with regard to the general view of this question. The point was how far it was carried out by the words of the Bill. This Bill had been very largely drawn as an enabling measure, and they had to deal with regulations which they had not seen and even of the existence of which they did not know. The object of the Amendment was to get it definitely laid down that the expenditure of the county associations was to be approved by the Treasury as well as by the Army Council.

  1717
  He wished that the Treasury should be alive to the necessity of all these matters being submitted to them by direct order of the House, in order that they might have greater security, both for efficiency and for economy.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 34, at end to insert the words 'and the Treasury.'"—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully studied the clause, which he night say was very plain—
  "An association shall submit to the Army Council annually at the prescribed time, and may submit at any other time for any special purpose, in the prescribed form and manner, a statement of its necessary requirements, and all payments to an association by the Army Council shall be made upon the basis of such statements as far as they are approved by the Army Council."
  That was the preliminary stage in the composition and submission of the Estimate. The War Office, like any other Department, sent their Estimates one by one to the Treasury for approval, and the Treasury made their comments upon the Estimates as a whole, and also upon the items of those Estimates. It was not the practice of the War Office, nor was it demanded by the Treasury, that the former should consult the latter as to any particular item proposed to be put into the Estimate. It would be wholly without precedent, and not demanded by the Treasury, that at this stage the Treasury should be consulted as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the amount of money proposed to be given to the county associations for their purposes. When the whole Estimate vas completed in form it was sent over to the Treasury, who wrote back to the Department their comments. They might say that too much was asked on this item, or too little on that, and they would ask the reason of a particular item or charge. It was a perfectly recognised practice, and he did not think that any useful purpose would be served in regard to the work of the Departments if they put upon their discretion the limiting restriction suggested by the Amendment as to the items which should be inserted
  1718
  in the Estimate to be subsequently submitted to the Treasury.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had no quite understood the reason which had actuated the hon. Gentleman in refusing to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend. As far as he understood, when the Estimate was first made, it was sent to the Treasury for examination. The clause as to the payments to the associations was that the payments should be "on the basis of such statements, in so far as they an approved by the Army Council." If English words had any meaning, that provision meant that the payments made to the associations were to be made if the Army Council considered that such payments were necessary. He had very often listened to the hon. Gentleman opposite when he stood below the gangway on that side of the House, and when his contention always was that Treasury sanction should be obtained, and if Treasury sanction was not obtained, at any rate no sum should be voted without the consent of the House of Commons. He had sat on the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and he had heard him speak at great length on this subject. Now, as he understood, the hon. Gentleman had thrown over all his principles, and was prepared to approve a plan which would give the Army Council power to vote money to County Associations without the consent of the Treasury, and without the consent of Parliament. He had received so many shocks since he returned to. Parliament about a year ago that nothing done by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would surprise him. He approved very heartily of the Amendment. He could not conceive that there could be any objection to it. The result of it would be that when the association had submitted to the Army Council their Estimate, the Army Council, when they had approved of it, would have to say to the Treasury that they approved of the Estimate, and that they required their sanction to it. Was not that a practice which had obtained almost from time immemorial? Why should that practice be overthrown? The hon. Gentleman had given no reason that he could understand. The question touched the whole system of control by the Treasury of the expenditure

  1719
  of the nation. Unless some satisfactory explanation was given he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGthought that the the Treasury had too much to do with the Territorial Force. But if they were to interfere at all, this was the very place where the sanction of the Treasury should be required. It appeared to him to be very much simpler that the Treasury should sanction the requirements before the Army Council gave the order to have them carried out. He understood that the payments by the Army Council to the associations were to be made on a statement of the requirements of the associations. But if the Army Council made payments to a county association on such a basis, it could be afterwards vetoed by the Treasury under sub-section 3. If that were the case it seemed to him that the Treasury should, in the first instance, be consulted on the basis of
  the statement of requirements, and, if the Treasury gave their sanction, then the county association and the Army Council would be backed up by the fact that the amount and the details were approved. Supposing that the Army Council desired to introduce some small amendments into the scheme of the county association, and sent it back to be altered in accordance with what their experience of other counties suggested to be necessary, it seemed to him that between the Army Council and the county association there would be no finality whatever. The Amendment would tend to simplify what would prove to be an exceedingly complicated situation in the working of the Bill, and upon those grounds he should support it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 190.)

  AYES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sir F. Banbury and Captain Craig.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cowan, W. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cremer, William Randal

  Barker, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crombie, John William

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crooks, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Bell, Richard

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

  Causton, RtmnRichard Knight

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Bethell, Sir J H. (Essex, Romford

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Elibank, Master of

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Brace, William

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Findlay, Alexander

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Seddon, J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Shackleton, David James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Riclard B.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Mond, A.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Murray, James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Nicholls, George

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Thorne, William

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomkinson, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Holt, Richard Burning

  Partington, Oswald

  Verney, F. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paul, Herbert

  Walsh, Stephen

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Walters, John Tudor

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Price, C. E (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Wiles, Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richardson, A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham), Mid)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robinson, S.

  Winfrey, R.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Levy, Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Russell, T. W.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHmoved an Amendment to provide that the power of the Army Council to allow a County Association to apply money paid to it to purposes other than those specified in its statement of requirements should be subject to the sanction of the Treasury. He said that this was a question about which there was a good deal of doubt, but in his opinion it was a power which ought to be held by the Army Council subject to the approval of the Treasury for the good of the public service. It was a
  1722
  power which ought to be exercised with the greatest consideration, and only when full justification was shown. A heavy responsibility rested upon the Treasury in sanctioning the use of that power, and the fullest information upon the point ought to be laid before the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment. The sanction of the Treasury was absolutely necessary if expenditure was to be subject to the constitutional safeguards which had hitherto been enforced. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 39, at end, to insert the words 'after the sanction of the Treasury has been obtained.'"—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had misapprehended the power to be conferred on the Army Council. The Army Council could not exercise the right of transfer from one subhead to another. The sixth sub-section of the clause said—
  "Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall be subject to the consent of the Treasury."
  If the Army Council exercised their powers under Sub-section 3 of the clause they could only do so subject to the regulations made under the Act. The regulations must be made subject to the consent of the Treasury. He did not think, therefore, there was any reason for apprehending that undue powers were being given to the Army Council. Believing that the expenditure of public money for any purpose sanctioned by the Army Council was properly safeguarded, he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he followed the hon. Gentleman's meaning up to the last sentence. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say at the commencement that he did not wish the Army Council to have any power under this section to transfer from one subhead to another. The power of transfer was a valuable one when properly used for securing due economy in administration. If that were all that was in the section, he would not object to it. But at the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that it went further. He claimed for the Army Council power to transfer as between any of the purposes stated by an association when it made its claim. He did not think it was the intention of the Government that the Army Council should have power to transfer money voted under one subhead to another.
  MR. BUCHANANwas understood to assent.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood it was the intention of the
  1724
  Government that the Army Council should in future exercise the same discretion as it did now with the consent of the Treasury.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Within the subheads.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was perfectly satisfactory as a statement of policy. The third sub-section of the clause said—
  "All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Army Council."
  But the money allotted to an association under this sub-section would be subject to any regulation subsequently passed and of which the House had no knowledge. Under the sub-section as it stood a County Association, without coming to the War Office at all for sanction, might spend money allotted to it for one purpose on any of the other purposes in the approved statement. There was nothing in the sub-section to prevent it. This was really a proposal to grant to the new associations a power which was not now possessed by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid regulations were contemplated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the House had no control over the regulations, and if no regulations were issued the section would still work. The regulations had not yet been drafted. They would be laid before the House, but there would be no opportunity for discussing them. He submitted that the sub-section went infinitely beyond what the Government wished to claim. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would get all they wanted. What was the objection to accepting it? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position. This was a matter in which all sections of the House were interested. They were all agreed in the object they wished to secure. If in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Amendment was a mere question of surplusage, let him accept the words to which they attached importance.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the section provided for regulations as between the associations and the Army Council. Parliament voted money under general heads, and under the practice that was followed there might be transfers from subhead to subhead, but the clause would bring in more control to the Army Council. The association would submit an annual statement of necessary requirements, and the whole machinery of the clause was subject to the regulations of the Treasury. The association could only apply the money to the specific purpose mentioned in the statement, and the transfer from head to head, or even from subhead to subhead, by the association was not within the intention of the Government or the wording of the clause. The power of transfer from one purpose to another was restricted to purposes within the subhead. If that were so, to add the words of the Amendment would be redundant.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not certain that he had made his meaning clear. He quite agreed that there was nothing in the Bill to weaken the control which the Treasury had over the War Office or Army Council. What he was referring to was the County Associations who would not be familiar with Parliamentary Votes, and still less with Parliamentary financial control and checks. The form prepared by the Army Council to be filled up by the County Associations might not be one which the House would adopt; and the County Associations might assume that any money paid to them could be spent in any way they chose, and, owing to the limited form of audit, there would be no way of following up the expenditure of the grants made. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would look very closely into the matter and invite the opinion of the Treasury upon it, with a view to prevent any abuse of the financial procedure he had adopted for the County Associations.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was quite reasonable, although he himself thought that what he feared was covered by the words of the clause. However, he would undertake between now and the Report stage to consult not only his own
  1726
  financial experts, but to bring the matter to the notice of the Treasury.
  * MR. MCCRAEsaid that the question at issue was very much larger than that to which it had been whittled down in the discussion between the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire. What the members of the Public Accounts Committee were most concerned about was not Treasury control but Parliamentary control. They had had instances under the late Government where the Treasury and the Army Council in collusion transferred a sum of no less than £10,000,000, not from one subhead to another, but from one Estimate to another, and they professed to do it under this power of virement. He maintained that nothing in the Bill would give the Treasury any other powers than they at present possessed, and that the clause, as drafted, did not safeguard Parliamentary control, or even the power of the Treasury over the exceptions provided for. As he understood the speech of the Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit that they ought not to go further with this power of virement; and if he was prepared to give an undertaking to provide for that in this clause on Report they might allow the discussion to close. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire would not give them any further financial control. He had instances in his mind in which the Treasury and the Army Council avoided Parliamentary control. Subsection of Clause 3 stated that—
  "All money so paid to an association shall, subject to regulations under this Act, be applicable to any of the purposes specified in the approved statements in accordance with which the money has been granted, but not otherwise except with the written consent of the Array Council."
  Surely that provided that all that the Treasury could do was to make regulations under the Act to regulate the exceptions granted under the Act. He was sure that the Secretary of State for War did not wish to give the military men a free hand in regard to expenditure; but, unless some undertaking was given, a very wide field would be left for the evasion of the financial control which at present obtained with regard to Army expenditure.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what this strange word virement is? Is it Gaelic or Welsh?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the word was old French, but it had become official here, and if the hon. Gentleman referred to the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee he would find that it had been adopted and indexed for official use. It meant turning one thing into another. There was a notorious case where, for nine years in succession, the War Office had taken money for nine batteries of artillery which they had not the least idea of spending on these batteries, but of spending for other purposes. He thought the practice was most detrimental to sound finance.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that after the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for War he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he wished to move the omission of Sub-section 4 of Clause 3 in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation of its meaning. The subsection began "all other money received by an association." It was obvious from that that other moneys would be received, but where were they to come from? The words of the Bill suggested that money would come otherwise than from an official quarter, which the right hon. Gentleman had led them to believe was the only quarter from which money would come. If they looked at another portion of the clause they found that the money was to be paid in such sums as "in the opinion of the Army Council" were required to meet the necessary expenditure. According to those words it would depend upon whether the expenditure was necessary, and consequently it meant that if the associations incurred expenditure which in the opinion of the Army Council was unnecessary, the money must be found from some other quarter in order that the expenditure might be defrayed. What he wanted to ask was where the money was to come
  1728
  from. Was it expected that the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, who, he was quite sure, was rejoicing that he had been elevated to such an important position as President of this Association, the provisions in regard to which he hoped would never come into force—was it expected that the Lord-Lieutenant should go round, to use a common expression, "with the hat" and solicit money from the various members of the community over which he presided? He knew that the right hon. Gentleman based his schemes of committees and associations on the experience gained in the South African War, but the organisation of these associations would have to take place in peace time, and the South African committees were dependent upon voluntary subscriptions. That made a great difference, and he would like to know whether when the right hon. Gentleman proposed the scheme he had at the back of his mind the idea that the county was coming forward at the bidding of the Lord-Lieutenant to find the money which perhaps a parsimonious War Office would not give. This provision in his opinion, was of an entirely redundant character, and he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would put down his foot once and for all and say that the service of the State should be maintained by the State.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4)."—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
  Question proposed, "That Subsection (4) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HALDANEsaid the associations, which would, he trusted, form a real element in the social life of the county, might, for example, desire to offer prizes to be competed for among the battalions, and there might be people who would wish to give subscriptions for such a purpose. The subsection was intended to meet cases of that kind, to describe the ambit of the powers of the associations.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that many Yeomanry as well as Militia and Volunteer regiments possessed certain funds and also plate. Was it intended that such property would pass to the associations for the benefit of the Territorial Army?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that that matter was dealt with in Section 28, subsection (3), which provided for the transfer to the association of any property belonging to a unit, but subject to the trusts upon which it was previously held, or, where there was no trust, only with the consent of the unit ascertained and certified in the prescribed manner.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that he felt rather alarmed at the statement which had been made. If the county associations were to be entrusted with these powers and were to be in receipt of income from other than national sources they ought not to receive any bequests or legacies to be applied for purposes apart from those of national concern. So surely as the Government allowed them to receive money in the way of gifts they would be opening the door to all sorts of collusion and jobbery. He did not believe that it was proper that these associations should be the recipients of legacies and gifts for one part of the Army rather than another. One county association might be very successful in regard to the receipt of gifts or legacies while another county association was not, and there would be set up a condition of inequality which was not desirable. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted and carried on the ground that they would not get fair treatment all round unless they prohibited the county associations from augmenting their incomes in the way suggested.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he did not agree with his right hon. friend in thinking that this section opened the door to jobbery. In his opinion the section was a good one, provided that the Secretary of State was desirous of receiving voluntary contributions for the purpose of maintaining the Territorial Army. If that was the object of the right hon. Gentleman, then the clause could not be better drawn. At the same time, he thought that it was an extraordinary thing to introduce in a national Army Bill a clause whereby permission was given to send round the hat asking for subscriptions to the Army as if it were a hospital or a voluntary school. Did the right hon. Gentlemen propose to give a grant-in-aid to the Territorial Army
  1730
  and allow the county associations to go round for subscriptions?
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he did not think the answer of the hon. Gentleman in any sense disposed of the question. It was obvious that the expenses of the "powers and duties" under this section should be defrayed at the cost of the nation.
  MR. BRIDGEMANasked whether, if he left money to an association to encourage cadet battalions and corps and rifle clubs, the association would be able to spend it for that purpose.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his determination to maintain equality among the various units which were to be established in the Territorial Army, and he asked what was to prevent people subscribing to put a particular unit in a more favourable position than its neighbour. Another point on which emphasis had been laid was that there should be nothing in the nature of handing the hat round in regard to the Territorial Force. Would not the sub-section, however, authorise an association to solicit assistance?
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Government had never said they wanted to put the associations in a worse position than the Regular Army by depriving them of the chance of receiving a legacy—for prizes for shooting, for instance. Many of the most distinguished regiments had attached to them societies which depended upon the exercise of voluntary co-operation and assistance, and which did most useful work. He contemplated that there would be a great deal of interest in these associations in the counties, and very likely people would give cups and the like, and he hoped they would sometimes leave legacies. He was not prepared to put the associations in the position in which a felon used to be under the old law, or in which a married woman was in the old benighted times, so that they could not take and hold any property. The money was to be applied to whatever purposes were within the scope of the associations, and not otherwise.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHpointed out that there were certain duties paid for by the State, and asked if voluntary contributions would lighten the burdens of the State in respect of those duties.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked whether, if a county association had been liberally dealt with during the year by private gentlemen, the amount which had been so received would be knocked off the estimate when it came before the Army Council? If that were not so, would the money be for the use of the county association in future years for its own benefit? If a few hundreds a year were left to a county association, would that money go towards the reduction of the estimates prepared to meet the expenses of that association, or would it go to supplement the money coming from the War Office, and therefore make that particular county more efficient than neighbouring counties? That was the real gravamen of the matter. He could imagine a sort of rivalry between counties each to maintain its own force in a state of efficiency; so that this point about voluntary subscriptions undoubtedly raised a very wide issue. The right hon. Gentleman had not thrown very much light on the exact definition of the words "powers and duties." If the powers and duties were not to be met entirely out of the funds of the Army Council, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman's desire to have all
  the forces on one level would be difficult of accomplishment. That desire would be defeated by this clause, which was obviously intended to apply to a little more than a few cups to be shot for. If the War Office was not prepared to pay all the expenses necessary to make a county association capable of maintaining the efficiency of its force, then they must have subscriptions from those who were desirous of maintaining the regiment in efficiency. If that was the intention of this Radical Government, it was time the country understood where they were in regard to the matter. He thought the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman contrasted very unfavourably with the hopes which he had held out to them, and that even the very short time which had been allowed to them to discuss this very wide issue had more than shown the need of the Amendment, the rejection of which would cause very considerable dissatisfaction in the country.
  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th May, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 191.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mford

  Chance, Frederick William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Agnew, George William

  Billson, Alfred

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bowerman, C W.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brace, William

  Clough, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brigg, John

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barker, John

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Barlow, John Emmott (S'mers't

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Cremer, William Randal

  Beauchamp, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crombie, John William

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Crooks, William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Richardson, A.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Robinson, S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lupton, Arnold

  Russell, T. W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maclean, Donald

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seddon, J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shackleton, David James

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Callum, John M.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stanley, H. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

  Massie, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mond, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, James

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

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

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Thorne, William

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomkinson, James

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Toulmin, George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Partington, Oswald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Paul, Herbert

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hudson, Walter

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Wardle, George J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Waring, Walter

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  1734

  1735

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Winfrey, R.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George R.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Capt. H. G. (Winchester

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratclilf, Major R. F.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Keswick, William

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joieey

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

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

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

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Viscount Castlereagh and

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Moore, William

  Captain Craig.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  The Chairman then proceeded to put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 192.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bell, Richard

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agnew, George William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allan, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bethell, Sir J K. (Essex, Romford

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barker, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Clough, William

  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  Clause 4:
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 193.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bell, Richard

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agnew, George William

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allan, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bethell, Sir J K. (Essex, Romford

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barker, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Clough, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Partington, Oswald

  Coats Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paul, Herbert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pollard, Dr.

  Crombie, John William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richardson, A.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robinson, S.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lynch, H. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Sears, J. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Shackleton, David James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Grant, Corrie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stringer, H. Y.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, James

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Nicholls, George

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

  Toulmin, George

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Verney, F. W.

  Hobhoase, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  1738

  1739

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Wardle, George J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Waring, Walter

  Whitely, John Henry (Halifax)

  Winfrey, R.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  O'Grady, J.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Haddock, George R.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Seddon, J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hodge, John

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

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

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Thorne, William

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

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

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Moore, William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George;

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barker, John

  Black, Arthur W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, John Emmott (S'merset

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Agnew, George William

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brace, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brigg, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bell, Richard

  Brooke, Stopford

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Billson, Alfred

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Myer, Horatio

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Napier, T. B.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Charming, Sir Francis Allston

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholls, George

  Cheetham, John Frederick

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneast'r

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Clough, William

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Coates, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Paul, Herbert

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Crombie, John William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crooks, William

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Richardson, A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertsonm J. M. (Tyneside)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, J.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Russell, T. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lough, Thomas

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lynch, H. B.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sears, J. E.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Maclean, Donald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Grant, Corrie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harmsworth, RL. (Caithn'ss-sh.

  Mond, A.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  1742

  1743

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Willams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Toulmin, George

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Verney, F. W.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Walters, John Tudor

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wiles, Thomas

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibb, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Haddock, George R.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Seddon, J.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hodge, John

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thorne, William

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.