Commons Sitting of 4 March 1908

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Dublin and South Eastern Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following case, viz.:—London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads, and Tramways.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of 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.:—London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads, and Tramways [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Harwich Docks Bill, reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Wednesday next.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation; from Ilminster; Kirby Moorside; Plymouth; and, Whyteleafe,; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING.)
  Petition from Macduff, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Exeter; Heavitree; Ushaw Moor; and Worksop; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Nelson; and, Walton on Thames; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  VIVISECTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Fourth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence), October to December, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1908–9 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Estimate presented, showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1909 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 82.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Regulation for Secondary Schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire), 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  REVENUE (COLLECTION OF TAXES).
  Return ordered, "showing for each of the three Kingdoms (1) the amount charged for Income Tax, Land Tax, and

  659
  Inhabited House Duty for the financial years 1906, 1907, and 1908; and (2) the amounts and percentage of the same collected in each country by the 31st day of January and the 28th day of February, respectively, in each of the said years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 82, of Session 1907)."—(Mr. McCrae.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Positions of Ex-telegraph Messengers.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his statement in the House of Commons during the debate on the Post Office Estimates last year, as to the lot of those telegraph messengers who, under the rule in existence, are compelled to leave the service at the age of sixteen years, he will issue instructions, that in all cases where casual and auxiliary labour is employed in the postmen's office, Dublin, ex-telegraph messengers should be regarded as having prior claim to outsiders, provided their health and character is good; and will he state the number of telegraph messengers in Dublin dismissed since the termination of the South African War, and the cause of their dismissal, and the number of telegraph messengers in Dublin promoted to be assistant postmen during the past two-and-a-half years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question raised in the hon. Member's inquiry is one which I have at present under my consideration, but I may say at once that those telegraph messengers for whom permanent employment in the Post Office cannot be provided are required to leave at sixteen in order to give them the best opportunity of obtaining other employment. The same consideration makes it undesirable to continue their employment as auxiliaries, without a prospect of establishment. The statistics asked for by the hon. Member would take a considerable time to prepare and would not assist in arriving at a decision in the matter.

  Promotion of Engine Room Artificers.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the method by which engine room artificers of the Royal
  660
  Naval Reserve are promoted to warrant engineers, and the nature of the examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Engine room artificers of the Royal Naval Reserve, who have been specially recommended by the commanding officer of one of His Majesty's ships on the completion of a period of training in the Fleet, are eligible for advancement to the rank of warrant engineer, Royal Naval Reserve. Advancements to this rank are made from time to time by selection from experienced engine room artificers, Royal Naval Reserve, between twenty-nine and forty years of age but no man is considered eligible for promotion who has not received the special recommendation referred to above. No examination is held.

  Shipping Rates.
  MR. CURRAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the subsidies being paid by the Government to various shipping companies, and the present high Atlantic shipping rates, consideration will be given to the advisability of fixing maximum rates for British ships sailing from British ports.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The so-called subsidies referred to in the Question are, generally speaking, payments for services rendered, and these payments would presumably have to be increased if a limitation of rates were imposed as a condition. The subject of combinations of shipowners to maintain rates by a system of deferred rebates is at present being considered by a Royal Commission. I do not, as at present advised, propose to take any further action in the matter.

  Death Duties.—Valuation of Licensed Premises.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is possible to obtain from the accounts of the estates of deceased persons at the Inland Revenue Office some particulars, for the information of the House, as to the number of years purchase at which licensed property has been valued for the purpose of the assessment of the death duties.

  661
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Baronet on the 2nd of March, no separate record is kept of the death duties derived from licensed property. It is not often that the Board of Inland Revenue have to consider, on any one occasion, the value of more than one of the many interests in such property. The information obtained from the Estate Duty statistics relative to the sworn value of licensed property is, therefore, very incomplete, and it would probably be only misleading unless supplemented by other information of a confidential character.

  The Zakka Khel Territory.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the territory occupied by the Zakka Khel lies inside or outside of the external frontier of His Majesty's possessions in India; and, if inside of that frontier, whether he can lay within the Library a map which will clearly indicate the position of that frontier.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley:) The territory of the Zakka Khel lies within the external frontier of His Majesty's possessions in India, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question of Monday. A copy of the official published map of Afghanistan, showing that frontier, will be placed in the Library.

  Free Grant of Ammunition to Civilian Rifle Clubs.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to promote efficiency and keenness among civilian members of rifle clubs, he will make a grant of ·303 service ammunition to rifle clubs at the rate of 100 rounds for each skilled shot certificate issued by the National Rifle Association to members of such clubs who have attained a high standard of skill with the service rifle on open ranges.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There are no funds at my disposal at present to enable me to make the grant suggested in the Question. It is just possible we may be able to do something for them by supplying a certain amount of ammunition at reduced rates.

  The Territorial Army Attestation Form.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any further information as to the amendment of the attestation form for the Territorial Force.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what steps should be taken or statements made, with reference to the attestation form, by Yeomanry or Volunteer officers who are under orders to ascertain during the present week whether the men now serving under them will continue to serve in the Territorial Force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In reply to these Questions the attestation form has been submitted to the advisory council, and a modified form will be issued. In the meantime there is no reason why Yeomanry and Volunteer officers should not continue to ascertain whether the men now serving under them will serve in the Territorial Force. The terms and conditions of service under the Act have been fully explained in the published leaflets, and are not in any way affected by the particular form adopted for the attestation.

  Swivel-lug of the Enfield Rifles.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Small Arms Committee who rejected the swivel-lug immediately in front of the magazine from the design of the converted long Lee-Enfield rifle intended that the guard-screw in front of the magazine should be interchangeable with the swivel screw on the toe of the butt; and whether he will consult the Small Arms Committee as to the advisability of making this alteration in the case of all future conversions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of placing the swivel-lug immediately in front of the magazine of the converted long Lee-Enfield rifle was not referred to the Small Arms Committee, and was therefore not dealt with by them. The swivel-screw on the toe of the butt, which is a wood screw for screwing into the butt, cannot be used in place of the guard-screw in front of the magazine which screws into the metal of the body, as the present butt-swive

  663
  cannot be detached from the screw of which it forms part.

  Guns for the Territorial Army.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the guns to be supplied to the field artillery of the Territorial Force are ready for distribution; when will they be distributed to the field artillery brigade at Grimsby, Boston, and Louth; and whether, if the whole of the guns cannot now be sent, two guns per battery will be forwarded to each of the places mentioned, in order that drill may be commenced as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These guns are not yet ready for distribution, but sufficient will be completed this month for an issue of one gun per brigade, and such issue is now proceeding. The conversion and issue of the remainder will be carried out rapidly during the coming financial year, by the end of which, as I have previously explained to the House, it is proposed to issue all the guns required.

  Territorial Army—Pay of Quartermasters.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the quartermasters (many of whom are old soldiers with distinguished service) now serving in the Volunteer Force, and receiving a salary from the commanding officer out of the funds of the corps, will in future be paid by the County Territorial Associations; and, seeing that in future their duties will be more onerous than before, whether an increase of pay can be guaranteed to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will my hon. friend kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on the 26th February on this subject by the hon. Member for Dundee?

  The Territorial Army—Attestation Form.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if Army Form 502, the attestation paper for the Territorial Force, is definitely withdrawn; and, if so, whether he will consider the expediency of postponing the time for the completion of the new attestation papers to some date later than the 31st March, in view of the great amount of
  664
  clerical work entailed and the delay in issuing the papers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The original attestation form for the Territorial Force has been cancelled, and it is hoped to issue the revised form very shortly. Serving Yeomen and Volunteers who wish to enter the Territorial Force need not attest before 30th June and cannot begin to do so before 31st March, so that ample time has been provided.

  Arrest of Eugene O'Riordan at Kingwilliamstown.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Constabulary authorities are aware that a respectable young man named Eugene O'Riordan was arrested on Sunday 23rd inst. in King-williamstown, county Cork, by an acting sergeant of Royal Irish Constabulary, and taken to the police station, but on arrival there no charge was preferred and he was immediately released; and what explanation can be given to justify the arrest of this young man against whom no charge was made.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A police sergeant found O'Riordan on licensed premises during prohibited hours on Sunday, and, as he failed to give his full name and address, the sergeant took him to the police station under the authority of the 37 and 38 Vic., c. 69, s. 27. Upon arrival at the police station O'Riordan's name and address were given by his uncle to the police, and O'Riordan was at once released. It was then found that he was a bona fide traveller, and consequently he was not prosecuted.

  Purchase of the Cooper Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for sale and purchase as between landlord and tenants have been for some time in progress on the Cooper estate, around Knocklong, in the county Limerick; is he aware that John McGrath and Thomas Barry have been evicted tenants on that estate for more than twenty years; has an inspector from the Estates Commissioners visited McGrath and Barry, and, if so, with what result; and will he ask the Estates Commissioners to put themselves in communication with

  665
  Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville, and Mr. Halte, with a view to the immediate reinstatement of Messrs. McGrath and Barry through those agents.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to in the Question have been instituted before them. The Commissioners, however, have inquired into the cases of John McGrath and Thomas Barry, who were evicted from the Cooper estate about twenty years ago, and the holdings have been inspected. The Commissioners have recently furnished to the owner a preliminary estimate of the amounts they are prepared to advance for the purchase of these holdings; but they have not yet received a reply.

  South African War Compensation Claims—Case of the Lydenburg Estates.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a company called the Lydenburg Estates duly lodged a claim with the proper authorities for damage done by the British troops during the South African War, and for goods requisitioned; and that, on the advice of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, they withdrew their claim in respect of the first item and restricted their claim to goods absolutely requisitioned by the British troops, and for which they have produced the receipt of a major in the British Army, but after repeated applications they have failed to obtain a settlement; and will he look into this, with a view to arranging that this private company shall be paid for the goods supplied to His Majesty's troops.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Lydenburg Estates were informed by the Colonial Office when they sent in their claim that no compensation could be paid to companies for general war damage whether caused by the Boers or by British troops, compensation being paid only to individuals to enable them to resume their normal occupations. That part of the claim which rested on a certificate signed by a major in the British Army was very carefully considered both by the Governor and by the Secretary of State, and it was decided that the view of the Central Judicial
  666
  Commission, which adjudicated upon the claim, that the certificate in question could not be regarded as a military receipt but only as evidence of war losses, must be upheld. The claim has been exhaustively considered and it is not possible now to re-open it.

  Irish Technical Schools Building Fund.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that serious financial difficulties have arisen in various Irish technical schools owing to the repayments made for building; and whether the Treasury will arrange immediately to provide the amount necessary as a building fund to enable those schools to be efficiently and economically worked.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Bussell.) My hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to answer this Question. The matter referred to in the Question is under consideration.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease—Importation of Foreign Forage.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in view of the fact that the foot-and-mouth disease was introduced into Scotland through the medium of imported foreign forage, he will, in conjunction with the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), arrange to prohibit the importation of any foreign forage from countries where there is not a clean bill of animal health into any part of the three kingdoms.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Single School Areas in Yorkshire.
  MR. ACLAND: To ask the President of the Board of Education what number of parishes in the rural districts of the North Riding of Yorkshire contained on the 1st of January of this year only one public elementary school, and more than one respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A Return is in course of preparation giving the names and other information regarding all voluntary schools in single-school parishes as denned by the Education Bill, but I regret I am unable to extend its

  667
  scope so as to include parishes with more than one school.

  Post Office Appointments.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of assistant postmen, ex-telegraph messengers, awaiting appointments; their average service and wages; the number of ex-Army and Naval men who have been appointed over those men during the period from which their service is taken; if he has any official reports showing that the majority of ex-Army and Naval candidates at Dublin are incapable of performing the ordinary duties of town postmen after reasonable training; will he say how many ex-Army and Naval men were capable of substituting the regular walk holders last year whilst they were on annual and sick leave, and if the assistant postmen (ex-messengers) over whom those men are appointed are capable of taking up any duty on a moment's notice, and will he recommend the abolition of the Army scheme in the interests of the public service; how many ex-Army and Naval men, employed as town postmen in Dublin, were medically disqualified from the Army and Navy; how many of those men are in receipt of pensions, and, in the interests of the public service, will he discontinue the employment of those men; and will he say how many ex-Army and Naval men, employed as town postmen in Dublin, are competent in setting in correspondence on heavy commercial walks.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The system under which every other postman's place has to be offered to an ex-soldier or ex-sailor was instituted some years ago for national reasons; and I cannot discontinue the system even if I desired to do so. To obtain the detailed information asked for would entail much expense and trouble.

  Manufacture of Horseshoes at Woolwich.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the horseshoes required by the Army have at any time, during the last five years, been manufactured at Woolwich Arsenal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No horseshoes have been made in the
  668
  Ordnance Factories within the last five years.

  Malta Fever.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of cases of Malta fever occurring among the troops in Malta in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively; how many of the cases in each year terminated fatally; whether the reduction in the number of cases is attributable to the prohibition of the use of goats milk or to any method of protective inoculation; and whether the disease continues to prevail among the native population.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of cases of Malta fever occurring among the troops in Malta, and the number of deaths during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, was as follows:—

  Cases.

  Deaths.

  1905

  643

  16

  1906

  161

  4

  1907

  11

  1

  The reduction in the number of cases of Malta fever among the troops in Malta is solely attributable to the prohibition of the use of goats milk in barracks and hospitals. Protective inoculation has not been used for the troops. The disease, according to information received from the Board of Health in Malta, continues to prevail among the native population without any change or abatement.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    East Indians in Nyassaland.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding the number of His Majesty's East Indian subjects in Nyassaland.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I regret that I am unable to supply the hon. Member with exact statistics, but I understand from the Governor of Nyassaland, that, exclusive of the soldiers of the Indian

    669
    contingent, there are some 300 or 400 of His Majesty's East Indian subjects in Nyassaland.

    Chinese Labour in South African Mines.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state the number of Chinese labourers who were working in the South African mines on 1st January, 1906, and on 1st January, 1908.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The official returns show the numbers employed on the last day of the month. The figures are, 31st December, 1905, 47,267, but for the purpose of accurate calculation, to this should be added the 16,000 coolies liable to be imported on licences issued under the late Government during the last few weeks of its tenure of office, making a total of 63,267. The total number on 31st December, 1907, was 35,676.
    EARL WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will cause a copy of his answer to be circulated with the Votes, and others to be sent to the past and present presidents of the Liberal Publication Department?
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are these slowly-disappearing Chinese being replaced by natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Questions which are answered orally are not circulated with the Votes, according to the present procedure of the House, which I have no power to alter. As to the other part of the noble Lord's Question, I am sure he does not expect me to take it seriously. The places of the repatriated Chinese have been more than filled by natives.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Why, then, is the Transvaal Government proceeding to recruit natives from Madagascar?
    MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

    The Transvaal Government and the French Government—Indentured Labour from Madagascar.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
    670
    Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence that has passed between His Majesty's Government, the Government of the French Republic, and the Transvaal Government, with reference to a supply of indentured labour for the Transvaal mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As no correspondence has passed with the French Republic I do not feel that the noble Lord's suggestion can be fruitfully adopted.
    EARL WINTERTONasked whether it was not a fact that, according to an answer given some time ago in the House, negotiations had been carried on between the Transvaal Government and the Government of the French Republic with regard to the supply of indentured labour from Madagascar?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, sir.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are we to understand that no correspondence on this subject has passed between the Government of the Transvaal and the French Government?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I have said so distinctly. No correspondence has passed between the Government of the Transvaal and the French Government, so far as I am aware.
    MR. HOWARDasked whether there was any truth in the statement of the hon. Member for Hastings that the Chinese have been replaced by men, women, and children from the New Hebrides.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether it is not the case that the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that negotiations had been proceeding between this Government and the French Government on behalf of the Transvaal Government for the recruiting of natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I stated that the Transvaal Government had approached us on the subject of approaching

    671
    the French Government; but I did not say that correspondence had actually taken place, and none has actually taken place.
    EARL WINTERTON: I have some doubt as to whether the Question I am about to put arises directly out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply—
    MR. SPEAKER: If the noble Lord has any doubt, he had better not ask it.
    EARL WINTERTON: On consideration, Sir, I think I have no doubt.
    MR. SPEAKER: On consideration, I think I have.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will afford the House an opportunity of discussing any fresh proposal that may be made by either His Majesty's Government to the Transvaal Government, or by the Transvaal Government to His Majesty's Government, for the supply of indentured labour to the South African mine before any definite action is taken.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Questions of business should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

    Uganda Game Reserve.
    SIR CLEMENT HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Uganda railway zone is still maintained as a game reserve; whether any infringements of that reserve have recently occurred; and, if so, whether any proceedings have been taken against a person or persons implicated.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The game reserve in the neighbourhood of the Uganda railway is still maintained. No notification has been received in the Colonial Office of any recent infringements of the reserve.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether, in view of the field presented for British settlers in this district, the right hon. Gentleman intended to follow the policy of his
    672
    predecessor in establishing great game preserves at the public expense for the sole benefit of the rich man's sport.
    MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say there was a good deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member with which he was in sympathy.
    MR. O'GRADYasked whether the hon. Gentleman who put the Question had not himself been guilty of breaking the law.
    MR. CHURCHILLreplied that he could not answer for the hon. Gentleman who put the Question.
    MR. FLYNN: Can you answer for yourself?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Under Section 23 of the Game Ordinance of the East African Protectorate, the Governor has authority to permit individuals whom he may think fit to go in pursuit of game, and it is entirely on the operation of that statute that the hon. Gentleman who put the Question would rely.

    Martial Law.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement in the Circular Dispatch of 16th January, 1867, printed as an appendix to the Natal Blue-book of May, 1906, viz. that to the Governor alone belongs the responsibility both of proclaiming and of revoking at any moment martial law, applies to self-governing Colonies as well as to Crown Colonies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The Secretary of State is advised that in a self-governing Colony martial law can only be proclaimed or revoked on the advice of Ministers.

    Dinizulu's Trial.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any statement from Mr. Jellicoe in reference to the trial of Dinizulu; and whether any steps are being taken in consequence

    673
    to secure for Dinizulu every facility to prepare his defence.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, but I fear that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave yesterday to my right hon. friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are we to understand that the Colonial Office have received the statement from Mr. Jellicoe, and if so, will an inquiry be made into the serious allegations made by him?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Elgin has received a communication. As to whether any special inquiry will be made I cannot say, but we are keeping ourselves well informed from Natal.

    Charges against Dinizulu.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state if Dinizulu has been informed of the definite charges on which he is to be tried; and will he state what those charges are.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As I informed my hon. friend on the 10th instant, Dinizulu has been arrested upon warrants charging him with: (1) High treason;(2) contravening the provisions of Section 44 of Act No. 1 of 1906, known as the Firearms and Ammunition Act of 1905; (3) Sedition and rebellion; (4) (a) Murder; (b) being an accessory to the crime of murder; (c) conspiracy to murder; (d) inciting to murder. So far as I am aware, these general charges have not been amplified by any specific facts as to whom he is accused of inciting to murder, or who was the person murdered, or when the incitement was given or in what the acts of treason, sedition and rebellion, etc., consist. The Secretary of State is informed by the Natal Government that this procedure, which seems scarcely immune from criticism, is in full accordance with the laws of the Colony of Natal during the stage of preliminary examination against an accused person. If, however, the examining magistrate decides that a prima facie case exists for the committal of Dinizulu
    674
    for trial a full indictment will have to be framed in accordance with the usual practice of courts of justice.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Are we to understand that the law of Natal allows a charge of murder, even against a white man, to be instituted and pressed without identification being made of the person who is supposed to have been murdered, or does that principle of law apply only to the native population?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the special law in this matter rests upon various proclamations which have been issued from time to time by the Governor in Council, or upon advice, and which have the effect of law. These proclamations do not discriminate between different races, but they do permit a preliminary examination to take place without precise definition of the charge.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite a single case in which a white man has been treated in the same way as Dinizulu?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot cite it now, but I should not like to say there were not cases.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I should think not.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how a prisoner is to meet the charges, if he is not told what they are?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I must ask for notice of a Question of that kind.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what arrangements have been made and what date has been fixed for Dinizulu's trial; have counsel been appointed to defend him; and have they had free access to him for the purpose of preparing his defence.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Dinizulu has not yet been committed for trial. With regard to his defence, I am not at present

    675
    in a position to add anything to the full reply on the subject which I give yesterday to my right hon. friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division.

    Fighting at Suj Bulak.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a pitched battle has been fought between the Kurds and Persians at Suj Bulak; and, if so, with what results.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): Fighting of a more or less desultory character took place in January between the Persians and. Kurds in this neighbourhood. The Kurds have apparently now withdrawn, and the Turks have evacuated Suj Bulak, where they had been in occupation for several days.
    MR. REES: Are these Kurds Turkish or Persian subjects?
    MR. RUNCIMANasked for notice of that Question.

    Workmen's Compensation.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to amend the law so as to provide a remedy for a workman who has been awarded compensation against a contractor who was not insured in respect of such liability, and who, owing to his inability to pay, has been declared bankrupt.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I do not see what remedy could be provided to meet the cases contemplated by my hon. friend, except by the establishment of some system of compulsory insurance As to this, I think that some experience of the working of the present law is necessary, but I am considering at what time it will be desirable to undertake the inquiry into the question of a genera scheme of compulsory insurance which I promised on the Second Reading o the Workmen's Compensation Bill in 1906. I may perhaps remind my hon. friend that in the cases of sub-contracting dealt with in Section 4 of the Act, the
    676
    workmen employed by a sub-contractor s given a right to proceed either against his immediate employer, or against the principal contractor.

    Welsh Mining Inspector.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to make Welsh a subject of examination for appointment to the post of mining inspector in Wales.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The answer is in the negative. No difficulty has been experienced hitherto in ascertaining whether an inspector, whom the Home Office proposed to send to a Welsh district, is acquainted with the Welsh language.

    Railway Inquiry.
    MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to announce the composition of the Committee of Inquiry into the railway system of the United Kingdom, and give terms of reference.
    MR. WARDLE: At the same time I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry into the existing relations between the railways and the State is to be held;, and, if so, if he can say what the nature and extent of the inquiry will be, and when the inquiry will commence.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The informal Railway Conference which is meeting at the Board of Trade is composed of representatives of railway companies, traders, agriculturists, the general public, and Government Departments. Its object is to endeavour to arrive at a general agreement with regard to such modifications of the existing law and of the relations subsisting both among the companies, and between the companies, traders, agriculturists, and the general public as may conduce to economy and elasticity of railway working, and also provides for the equitable apportionment of any advantages accruing therefrom. The Conference has decided to appoint several

    677
    Sub-Committees consisting partly of its own members partly of others to consider and report to it on certain groups of questions, among which is the question of the conditions and procedure for working agreements, combinations and amalgamations of railways, including any change in the relations between the railways and the State which might arise therefrom.
    MR. CURRANasked whether the State purchase of railways would be one of the subjects discussed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was, of course, in the power of the Committee to consider that among other things; but the Committee was not specially appointed to consider the nationalisation of railways, but rather to consider the question of what economies could be effected by combination generally.
    MR. JOHN WARD: Are we to understand that this is the Committee that was agreed upon as the outcome of the debate the other evening?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This last Committee that I have referred to is.
    MR. RAMSAY MACDONALDinquired how the extra appointments to the Committee had been made.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the usual way on the responsibility of the Government.
    SIR F. CHANNING: May I ask whether these Committees and Sub-committees are to report their recommendations to the Board of Trade, and whether these reports or recommendations will be placed in possession of the Members of this House?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Most certainly I contemplate that.

    Proposed Whaling Station on the Donegal Coast.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a company has commenced the erection of a whaling station on the Island of Arran-
    678
    more, Donegal; whether he is aware that where whaling stations have been established herring and other fisheries, have been ruined; and whether he will refuse to permit the construction and use of the proposed whaling station at Arranmore.
    The following Question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposed establishment of whaling stations at Arranmore and elsewhere on the coast of Donegal; whether he is aware that the modern methods of whaling, wherever whaling stations have been established, have resulted in the destruction of the herring and other fisheries; whether he is aware that the livelihood of 20,000 fishermen on the coast of Donegal and the adjoining islands is dependent on the preservation and extension of the existing fisheries; and whether seeing that the proposed stations cannot be erected without encroachment on the foreshore, the Board of Trade will refuse its assent to the erection of any whaling stations on the coast of Donegal.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As this Question and that of the hon. Member for West Donegal relate to the same matter, I may, perhaps, be allowed to deal with them together. The Board of Trade have received an application from the Arranmore Whaling Company, Limited, for permission to construct certain works on the foreshore and seabed of Arran Island, county Donegal. In accordance with their usual practice the Board of Trade have given instructions for the application to be advertised and several objections have already been received. These and any other representations will receive careful consideration, and we are also consulting the Irish Government in the matter, as the possible serious effect of the operations of a whaling station upon the local herring and other fisheries is a matter for the consideration of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. As the time fixed by the advertised notice for receiving objections has not yet expired, I am not yet in a position to state what the decision of the Board will be.

    Non-Provided Schools.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, what was the average sum per scholar in non-provided schools paid out of the Exchequer in the past year.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): Exchequer grants are paid in aid of the general expenses of local education authorities under Part III. of the Education Act, and are not allocated to individual schools and indeed in some cases, are not paid on the basis of attendance. It is impossible, therefore, to separate the grants paid in respect of council and voluntary schools respectively.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked whether the allocation of money for educational purposes to non-provided schools was not made in a lump.
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir, in the case of the non-provided schools. Does the hon. Gentleman mean in the Bill?
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: The existing ones.
    MR. MCKENNA: No; it is paid to the local authorities, not to the schools.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how much is paid?
    MR. MCKENNA: I am afraid not.

    Voluntary Schools.
    MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, if he will give the number of voluntary schools built since 1890, and the average number of children attending these schools.
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no collated statistics on this point prior to October, 1895. Since that date 588 voluntary schools with accommodation for 103,185 children have been placed on the list of public elementary schools. I regret that, owing to the labour involved, I am unable to state the average number of
    680
    children in attendance in each of the schools.

    Grants to Elementary Schools.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, to whom, under the Education Bill, will be paid the grants proposed to be made to the elementary schools other than public elementary schools.
    MR. MCKENNA: The grants will be paid to those persons who have made themselves responsible for maintaining and conducting, and have, in fact, maintained and conducted, the school.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONinquired whether the grants which had to be made to the contracting-out schools under the Bill had any reference to the White Paper which had been issued.
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir. The calculation of the grants to the voluntary schools is based upon the exact proportion of the amount which is paid in respect of any child on the average all over the country. If the total average attendance is multiplied by 47s., it will exactly equal the total amount of the grants paid.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked whether the grant to the voluntary schools would be based on this calculation and deducted.
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir, it will not be deducted from the grant. The local authority will receive its full grant according to the number of children in average attendance in the public elementary schools. They will not receive any grant for children in voluntary schools. That grant will be paid direct to the managers or trustees of those schools.

    Scottish Justices of the Peace and Jury Service.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether justices of the peace are liable to be summoned to serve on juries in Scotland though they are exempt in England; and whether, in his proposed legislation,

    681
    he will relieve Scottish justices from this duty.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): The position and duties of justices in the two countries are not exactly similar. The point as to the distinction noted by my hon. friend I shall however consider in framing the text of the forthcoming Criminal Procedure Bill.
    MR. WATT: And in the proposed legislation will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the age limitation for sheriffs-substitute?
    MR. THOMAS SHAWwas understood to reply in the negative.
    MR. YOUNGER: In view of the rate at which justices of the peace are being manufactured is it not possible we may not be able to get any juries at all?
    MR. HOLT: Is it the fact that iustices of the peace do not have to serve on Juries in England?
    MR. THOMAS SHAW: Before answering that I must get English advice.

    Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
    CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the practice adopted by those in charge of the fishery cruiser when in Aberdeen Harbour is so stereotyped in character that the trawlers can thereby judge in what direction the next intended movement is to be.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The movements of the fishery cruisers are no1 stereotyped, but are being constantly varied to meet the exigencies of their duties.
    MR. WATT: Is it not the fact that during the time any of the crew are required to give evidence the waters are not patrolled at all?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice of the Question.

    Scottish Local Government Act.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is his intention to introduce this session a Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am unable now to give any undertaking on this point though I hope the introduction of such a Bill may be possible. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat his Question shortly before Easter I will endeavour then to give him a definite reply.

    Seine Nets.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the net known as the seine trawl is used by any herring fishermen in Scotland, except those in the Firth of Clyde; and, if so, will he say in what ports it is used.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The seine net for the capture of herrings is used only in the Firth of Clyde; and its use is not confined to any particular ports there.
    MR. WATT: Why are they not used in other ports. Is it because they damage the herrings?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice.

    Drift Nets.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether the net known as the drift net is in any way injurious to the spawn of the herrings when deposited on the bottom of the sea; is there a minimum size of mesh fixed by Statute for both the seine trawl and the drift net; and, if so, what are the minimum sizes.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The net known as the drift net is not in any way injurious to the spawn of the herrings when deposited in the bottom of the sea. There is a minimum size of mesh fixed by Statute for both the seine trawl and the drift net: the minimum size is I inch from knot to knot by the Acts of 1808 and 1867.
    MR. AINSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the

    683
    desirability of suspending the use of the seine net in the Clyde either altogether or during the spawning season?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I will consider that.
    Mr. YOUNGER: And will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that a very large proportion of the fishermen use the seine that net? Will their interests be considered?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I think it should be remembered that any prohibition of the use of the seine net could only be arrived at by voluntary agreement.

    Organs in Scottish Poorhouses.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the opinion of the Local Government Board for Scotland in its last Report to the effect that it is illegal to provide organs for use in poorhouses out of the rates, whether he is aware that organs are provided by the Prison Commissioners for the prisons in Scotland; and whether he will take steps to have poorhouses put upon an equal footing with prisons by making it permissible for parish councils or poorhouse committees to purchase such instruments when so desired
    MR. SINCLAIR: The point will be considered when legislation on the subject of Poor Law administration is contemplated.
    MR. GULLAND: Cannot what is asked here be done by Ministerial act?
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, sir.

    Highland Railway Extensions.
    MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in what form and to what amount the Government subsidised the extension of the Highland Railway from Strome Ferry to Kyle of Lochalsh, and the extension of the West Highland Railway from Fort William to Mallaig.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: As regards the railway from Strome Ferry to Kyle of Lochalsh, a Supplementary Estimate for £45,000 was voted by the House in 1898
    684
    as a grant-in-aid to the Highland Railway Company in respect of the construction (i.) Of this railway; and (ii.) of the piers at Kyle and at Kyleakin in Skye. (House of Commons Paper, No. 56, of 1898.) As regards the second part of the Question, the Treasury were authorised by the West Highland Railway Guarantee Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Viet., c. 58), to guarantee for a period of thirty years from the date of the opening of the railway for passenger traffic payment of interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum on the capital of £260,000 raised by the Railway Company for the construction of the railway from Banavie to Mallaig. Under this guarantee there has been paid to 31st March last the sum of £20,860 in all.

    The Irish Police and the Peace Preservation Act.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the constabulary authorities were consulted by the Irish Government before the introduction of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, he can say if a similar course was adopted prior to the withdrawal of the Act twelve months ago; and, if so, whether it was upon the advice of the constabulary authorities, and with their approval, that the Government decided to terminate the operation of the Act.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I do not know what foundation there may be for the suggestion containing in the Question that the constabulary authorities were consulted by the Irish Government before the introduction of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881. But however that may be, I do not propose to make any statement as to whether or not His Majesty's Government thought fit to adopt a similar course before deciding not to renew the Act. The hon. and gallant Member is of course aware that any communication upon such questions which may pass between the Government and the police authorities are of a strictly confidential nature. I will only say that the Government were in full possession of all the facts bearing

    685
    on the matter, and that they gave the question full consideration.

    Firearms in Ireland.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have been made to the Irish Government by the constabulary authorities pointing to the difficulties and dangers affecting the maintenance of the public peace that have already arisen, and are likely to continue, consequent on the absence of restrictions in respect to the acquisition of firearms in Ireland; and will he ascertain from these authorities whether the provisions of the English Pistols Act of 1903 are suitable to the conditions prevailing in Ireland.
    MR. BIRRELL: For the reasons stated in reply to the last Question, I must decline to state what representations, if any, have been made to the Irish Government by the constabulary authorities upon the subject of the present Question. I have already stated that the Government are considering the advisability of introducing legislation for Ireland upon the lines of the English Pistols Act of of 1903, but I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

    Condition of Galway.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Horne, a resident magistrate stationed at Queenstown, was recently deputed by the Irish Government to make a special investigation respecting the condition of the county of Galway; how many days were occupied by Mr. Home in conducting his investigations; whether he has made a Report to the Government embodying the results of his local inquiries; and, if so, will such Report be laid upon the Table of this House.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Horne was employed in County Galway for ten days in the month of January last. His communication to the Government was of a strictly confidential nature, and will not be published.

    Irish Congested Districts Board.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND—On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board for the improvement of estates and division of untenanted land in their possession will be exhausted on 31st March next; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to enable the Board to continue their work during the coming financial year.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Congested Districts Board has announced that it is not in a position to purchase any more estates: whether this refusal to purchase applies to several most suitable estates which have been offered to the Board and which had been already inspected for purchase; whether his attention has been drawn to the very serious situation which has arisen on these estates from the disappointment of the confident hopes which had been aroused in the tenants of the above-mentioned estates; whether he can state what is the cause of this stoppage in the work of the Congested Districts Board; and what steps the Government propose to take to remedy the serious situation to which it has given rise.
    MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have decided not to make any parish grants during the coming financial year; if so, on what grounds the Board arrived at this decision; and whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence as to the working of the parish grant system published by the Dudley Commission.
    MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been

    687
    drawn to the fact that the estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board were, in 1904–1905, £649,544, in 1905–1906 £346,706, and in 1906–1907, £108,861; whether this decrease in the operations of the Board has been due to pressure from the Treasury, and not to want of estates offered for sale to the Board; and whether the Treasury has any power to prohibit the Congested Districts Board from purchasing estates offered to them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The funds of the Congested Districts Board available in any one year for the general work of the Board are derived from, two sources. First, from public moneys, there is a fixed income of £86,250. Secondly, receipts accrue in the course of the operations carried on by the Board under the wide powers conferred upon it. The principal heads of these receipts are—rent and other receipts on account of estates held by the Board, cash received for the sale of estates bought before 1903, and cash received as enhanced price of resale of estates bought under the Act of 1903. They are also allowed to borrow from the Board of Works to the amount of two-thirds of expenditure on improvements within certain definite categories. The aggregate funds of the Board thus accruing in the year provide the income available for expenditure on administration, technical instruction, grants to parish committees, fisheries, industries, piers, roads etc., in the congested districts; and for expenses of improving estates, the payment of interest to vendors of land, the payment of interest to the Land Commission on money advanced for purchase of estates, the payment of interest on, and the repayment of capital of, borrowings from the Board of Works. In the current year it was anticipated that a sum of £158,000 would be realised by the re-sale of estates, but as a matter of fact not more than £76,500 will be so realised. The Board were thus faced with the alternatives of suspending the improvement works on their estates with a view to keeping their expenditure within their actual income, or of asking for a temporary loan to carry on the works to the end of the financial year. The latter course has been adopted.
    688
    Having regard to their other obligations, the Board consider that a comparatively small amount of their present income is applicable to meet the net losses which are incurred upon the work of improving estates for resale to the tenants. It is necessary, therefore, unless the fixed income of the Board is increased, to restrict within narrow limits the amount of land which the Board buy, since every estate bought by the Board must ultimately involve a charge upon its income for the irrecoverable cost of improving the land for resale. The facts as to the value of the estates purchased in the three years-referred to are as stated by the hon. Member. The Congested Districts Board have, since the passing of the Act of 1903, been anxious to buy all estates for which they could arrange terms of purchase, and grass lands suitable for enlarging congested holdings, and have more than once asked for an increase of their income in order to carry out improvement works. There has been correspondence on this subject since August, 1905. Pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion His Majesty's Government consider it impossible to introduce legislation providing for an increase in the Board s income which is limited by statute. The Treasury have therefore strongly advised the Board to purchase only so far as their means enable them to execute improvements, but this advice does not apply to the purchase of certain grass lands for which the Board have made offers. The Treasury, it must be observed, do not claim any right to place-restrictions upon any particular operation of the Board. But the duty is imposed by statute upon the Board of submitting their estimates to the Treasury, and the Treasury obviously could not approve of such estimates if they showed an excess of expenditure over the income available. Pending the consideration of the Report on the whole question of congestion, which I earnestly hope will be issued by the Royal Commission before, or, at the latest, shortly after, Easter, the Government think that it is essential that the Congested Districts Board should be extremely cautious in the purchase of estates. The Board's income will not

    689
    enable them to carry out in the coming year any large schemes for improvements of tenanted estates, or for dividing untenanted land; and, with a view to making as rapid progress as possible in improving for resale estates already purchased, or to be purchased, the expenditure on other heads has been restricted within narrow limits. It is for this reason that they have announced the suspension of the Parish Committee Grants in the coming financial year. They do this with great regret.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked with regard to the first question if he was to understand that the funds at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board, even including the loan which had been obtained, for the improvement of estates and the division of untenanted land, would be exhausted at the end of this month, and whether this meant the stoppage of all improvement works and of the employment in these districts, and whether the Government realised the seriousness of the position which would arise?
    MR. BIRRELLsaid it did not mean that the Board would be obliged to stop work altogether, but it did mean that the Congested Districts Board would be obliged to stop the work of improvement at this time of the year. There would be considerable restrictions and limitations in the amount of the work.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the Board had not entered into provisional agreements for the purchase recently of certain estates, and whether now, in consequence of restrictions on the amount of money available, and after the inspection of these estates, the Commissioners had informed the tenants, who had been led to believe that the estates would be acquired, that the purchase could not go on? Did the Government realise the serious situation that was likely to arise in respect of these estates on account of the disappointed hopes of the people?
    MR. BIRRELLsaid it was no doubt the fact that the Board had entered into preliminary investigations, going to the expense of sending down their inspectors
    690
    to look at the land, and thereby creating a hope that immediate purchase was likely to ensue. But he was afraid that, while no actual restriction was placed on the Board in respect of the purchase of the estates, they would have to consider low far they were justified in entering upon the purchase of the land when they had not the income to make the necessary improvement works which, after all, were the sole object of the purchase.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but is it not the fact that the Board have provisionally agreed to purchase certain estates and in consequence of the restrictions imposed by the Treasury the purchase cannot go on? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to obviate the extremely critical situation that may consequently arise?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid it is an undoubted fact that the Board will not be able to proceed with the purchase of a considerable number of estates, though they hoped to be able to do so. I do not say that none of the transactions will be proceeded with, but that a considerable number of these estates cannot be purchased.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND,in view of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the difficulty might be got over by legislation, as an outcome of the Report of Lord Dudley's Commission, pressed the right hon. Gentleman to induce the Treasury to make temporary provision so as to prevent a deadlock and a critical situation arising in the districts.
    MR. BIRRELL: We are really in the position of having a statutory income, and of being obliged, if the Treasury put us to it, to confine our efforts within that, income.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of pressing on the Government the necessity of providing an occasion to discuss this matter, which is one of the most vital importance.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked when the Dudley Commission's Report might be expected.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is a matter of great regret to me that the issue of this Report has been so long delayed. If it had been presented some months ago a great many difficulties would have been removed. I shall endeavour to accelerate the Report as much as possible—even by twenty-four hours.
    MR. MOORE: Will this Motion relating to the urgency of providing funds for the Congested Districts Board take precedence of the Home Rule Motion?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: No, it will not.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circular issued by the Congested Districts Board on 22nd February, by which parish committees are requested to note that, so far as can be foreseen at present, the Board, owing to the state of their funds, will not be in a position to continue the parish committee scheme next year; whether the year referred to in this circular is the next financial year or the year 1909; and whether, in view of the fact that about 160 parish committees have been formed, of which fourteen are at work in county Kerry, he can state what steps he now proposes to take in order to prevent the complete cessation of the valuable work done by these parish committees.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already dealt with this matter in my reply to the questions put by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The suspension of grants to parish committees will take effect from the beginning of the next financial year, on 1st April.

    Irish University—Speech of the Provost of Trinity College.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the correspondence of the Rev. Mr. Gray and the
    692
    Provost of Trinity College, he will now state if he amended or altered the proof of the Provost's speech at Manchester on the University question before its delivery; and, if so, what were these alterations, and does he now accept responsibility for them.
    MR. BIRRELL: The learned Provost of Trinity College has already made it plain that I never asked him directly or indirectly to make any speech either at Manchester or elsewhere. The Provost told me he was going to make a speech and asked whether I objected to his saying that the Government did not propose in their University legislation this session to do anything affecting the status or revenues of Trinity College. I told him he was at perfect liberty to say so if he wished to do so. The next day the Provost sent me two short typewritten paragraphs which he proposed to incorporate in his speech. The first paragraph, relating to the status and revenues of Trinity, was not altered by me, but the second paragraph appeared to me to contain one or two expressions which might suggest, contrary to the facts, that the Provost was speaking on my behalf, and accordingly I made in pencil one or two alterations with the object of rendering that criticism impossible. I returned the two paragraphs to the Provost, and after that thought no more of the matter.
    MR. MOORE: When the right hon. Gentleman stated to the House that he had not read the speech, but had a portion of the proofs of the speech beforehand, was he not rather unintentionally misleading the House?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am very sorry that under the pressure of an interruption I said that I had not read the speech. It is true that I had not, and I have not now. But I am sorry if I used language which might seem discourteous to the Provost, whose hospitality I had accepted and for whose straightforward character I have the greatest possible regard. But it is the fact that I have not read the speech; and it is one of the advantages of my position that it is not necessary for me to read speeches.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: When are we likely to have the Bill, the purport of which was indicated in the speech?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am very much obliged for this Question being put to me. I hope that before the end of this month I shall have an opportunity of unfolding this measure to the House.
    MR. MOORE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a written Answer to the Member for Cambridge University he made the same statement about not having read the speech?
    MR. BIRRELL: And I have not read it.

    United Irish League and Servant Girl.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to an assault on a servant girl in the employment of a lady, named Mrs. Greated, of Lough George, county Galway, by a number of men when leaving the chapel where she had attended mass on Sunday, 23rd February last, and whether the police present were obliged to charge the crowd of men who were hooting and hustling the girl; whether he has any official information showing that the girl was so assaulted in consequence of the refusal of Mrs. Greated to obey the behests of the local branch of the United Irish League to give up her farm; and whether the Irish. Executive will notify that branch of the League that it will be no party to the dividing of grass lands among the neighbouring tenants where intimidation has been brought to bear to dispossess the present tenant.
    MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question a number of men followed the sister of a servant in Mrs. Greated's employment, and hooted and groaned at her. The police warned the men to desist and, upon their failing to do so, dispersed them. The girl was not assaulted. Seven of the persons were summoned by the police to find sureties to keep the peace. The case was heard yesterday, when the summonses were adjourned for two months upon the defendants undertaking not to interfere
    694
    with Mrs. Greated or her servants in the meantime. The police have no knowledge that the United Irish League has interfered with Mrs. Greated. In fact, no branch of the League exists in the locality.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Fund.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say under what Act of Parliament or authority subscribing members to the Constabulary Force Fund forfeit all claim to the money stopped from their salaries in case the wives of such members die or the children become over age.
    MR. BIRRELL: The deductions made from the pay and pensions of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary for the Constabulary Force Fund under the Statutes relating thereto are made available by Section 9 of 29 and 30 Vict., cap. 103, for the relief of the widows and children of the members of such force under such regulations as the Lord-Lieutenant may from time to time make. The statutes make no provision for any refund of contributions to subscribers themselves, and consequently, under the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations, all the receipts from contributions to the fund are appropriated to the widows and orphans who become eligible for grants from the fund. If it were not for the fact that many subscribers to the fund die or leave the force unmarried, or leave no member of their families after them who are entitled to a grant, the very liberal scale of gratuities paid from the fund to those entitled under the rules could not possibly be maintained.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the majority of subscribing members to the Constabulary Force Fund are now retired on pension, and that fully three-fourths of the same are anxious to have the fund wound up, he will take the necessary steps to do so.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Constabulary Force Fund is being gradually wound up by meeting its obligations to widows and orphans of subscribers as they arise.

    695
    This process of winding up was provided by the Act of 1883, which closed the fund to new entrants, and no more summary method of winding it up is possible.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of money received into the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund from all sources since date of inception; the amount paid out; to whom paid; the amount paid to each person; under what authority, and for what purpose; and what is the exact balance of the fund at present.
    MR. BIRRELL: It would be quite impossible to give a Return containing the information which the hon. Member asks for, and in any event the Return would serve no useful purpose. The Constabulary Force Fund came into existence in 1836, and the books of that remote period are not now forthcoming. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to Return No. 301 of 1905, and the previous Return of which that is a continuation. These Returns show the receipts and payments from the Fund for each year since 1880. I have no information as to the present balance of the Fund in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, but in any event this is not a matter which concerns the subscribers, seeing that the surplus, if any, which may remain after the Fund has been wound up must be surrendered to the Exchequer. As the hon. Member has already been informed, a Parliamentary Grant of £150,000 was made in 1891, in order to make the fund solvent, and it was a condition of the grant that any unexpended balance should be surrendered to the Exchequer.
    MR. SLOAN: Is there no possibility of getting from the National Debt Commissioners the exact amount of the fund?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire, but I do not see what good it will do for anybody to know.

    Toughboy Labourers Cottage Scheme.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    696
    Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the grounds put forward by the Local Government Board inspector for the, refusal of three labourers' cottages applied for in the electoral division of Toughboy, Mount Bellew rural district, are that the sites were half-a-mile from the public road and inconveniently situated; and, if so, will he see that more convenient sites are provided.
    MR. BIRRELL: The selection of sites for labourers cottages is a matter within the sole discretion of the rural district council. The Local Government Board have no power to direct the council to select any particular sites. The hon. Member should approach the council in the matter.

    Instruction in Cookery in Irish Schools.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland out of what funds provision is made for the teaching of cookery in the-Irish national schools; if he is aware that organisers in the employment of the Commissioners of National Education have in several centres intimated to female teachers that unless they attend lectures in cookery at their own expense their increments of good service salary will be withheld.
    MR. BIRRELL: Provision for the teaching of cookery in national schools is made in the Vote for Public Education, Ireland. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that organisers of cookery instruction have no authority to express any opinion as to the withholding or granting of good service increments to teachers. They are merely authorised to invite teachers to attend the lectures and demonstrations given for their benefit. If any organiser has exceeded his authority, the Commissioners will be prepared to investigate the matter on being furnished with particulars.

    Cookery Apparatus in Irish Schools.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the fees earned in respect of cookery instruction in the national schools are to be received by the managers, with authority to deduct therefrom the cost of the apparatus; and, having regard

    697
    to the fact that the salaries of junior assistants at £24 and senior assistants at £44 leave a slender margin, will he see that the cost of financing this subject is not cast on the teachers' salaries.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that cookery instruction is given as part of the ordinary school programme, and that the salaries awarded to teachers are for all the work done by them during ordinary school hours. The Commissioners, however, recognising that instruction in cookery cannot effectively be given without practical demonstrations involving the use of materials and apparatus, make a grant of 5s. for each girl enrolled in the cookery class under specified conditions. This grant is made to the manager who is empowered to pay to the staff the balance, if any, which may remain after defraying any necessary incidental expenditure. It is not the wish of the Commissioners that any portion of the cost of giving cookery instruction should fall upon the school staff; on the contrary, it is their intention that the teachers should profit to the extent of the unexpended balance of the fees awarded for the instruction.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. Moore,
    MR. BIRRELLpromised to look further into this matter, as he was desirous that the slender income of the teacher should be in no way infringed upon by providing apparatus.

    Millstreet Labourers Acts Inquiry.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received the petition to hold an inquiry under the Labourers Acts from the Millstreet Rural District Council; if not, can he state the causes of delay, and whether due to the council or its officials; and when is the improvement scheme likely to be received by the Local Government Board from the District Council.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have not yet received the
    698
    petition in this case, but they understand that the rural district council expect to be in a position to sign the petition at their next meeting on the 12th instant. It appears from the minutes of the council's proceedings that there was some delay on the part of the council's engineer in preparing some of the necessary documents.

    Evicted Tenant—Case of James Gore.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners, before finally deciding on the application of James Gore to be reinstated in his former holding, will submit to him, or to someone authorised to act on his behalf, the map showing the division which they propose to give him, and the boundaries of the other divisions into which they propose to cut his farm. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of James Gore, an evicted tenant on the estate of R. B. Balfour, representations have been made to the Estates Commissioners by representative and influential men in the district where the farm is situate that Gore should get the whole of his former farm; whether he is aware that public feeling in the locality is unanimously in favour of Gore getting at least his former residence and the land of best quality on the farm; and if the Commissioners will take into account the desirability of effecting a settlement that will leave no soreness behind.
    MR. BIRRELL: Before finally allotting the untenanted land on Mr. R. B. Balfour's estate, the Estates Commissioners will direct their inspector to attend with the map of the land and show to James Gore or anyone authorised to act for him the allotment which it is proposed to give him. The Commissioners have received representations that Gore shall be allotted the whole of the land, namely, 200 acres, formerly occupied by him, but they do not think it advisable to give him so much land. They propose to give him either his former residence and an allotment of land adjoining it, or another allotment with assistance to build a house, whichever he may prefer.

    Proposed Whaling Station on the Donegal Coast.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Donegal County Council, at their meeting held on the 26th instant, protesting against the establishing of whaling stations on any part of the Donegal coast, as ruinous to the fishermen and the fishing industry; and whether, in view of the evidence given at the inquiry, held at Derry and Burton Port, he will take steps to protect the Donegal Coast and its waters from being polluted by whaling stations.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Department are taking steps to make a by-law which, if approved by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, will have the result of prohibiting the establishment of any whaling stations on the Donegal coast.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary for Scotland and get a similar by-law for that country?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No, Sir.

    Potato Spraying in Ireland.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what the experience of 1907 proves as to the efficacy of potato-spraying and as to the extension of the practice; and what power the Department has to prevent the sale of adulterated or useless spraying mixtures.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The experience of 1907 undoubtedly proves that potato-spraying was most effective. Apart from the favourable reports of the Department's own officers, numerous letters have been received from individual farmers testifying to the excellent results which followed from the spraying of their crops. The Department regret that, as yet, they have no power to prevent the sale of adulterated or useless
    700
    spraying mixtures. The Department, however, had placards displayed in every district in Ireland during the season of 1907 warning farmers against purchasing: worthless ready-made spraying mixtures and advising them to use materials recommended in the Department's leaflet on the subject.
    MR. GWYNN: Will the hon. Gentleman introduce legislation enabling the prosecution of people selling adulterated spray mixtures?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am in consultation with the officials of the Department on the subject. I hardly know anything more important than the protection of the farmer against such things.

    Adulterated Food-Stuffs.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what power the Department has to prevent the sale of adulterated food-stuffs.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is presumed that this Question refers to food-stuffs for cattle, as defined in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906. The Department have no power to prevent the sale of adulterated food-stuffs. The only power they have is that vested in them by Section 12 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, which enables-them to take samples for the purpose of instituting prosecutions. In the opinion of the Department the powers afforded them under this Section are not sufficiently clearly defined, and they propose to ask for more extended and more clearly defined powers under the section in question.

    Skim Milk.
    MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how far the evils resulting from the use as food for animals and for human beings of skim-milk returned from creameries are abating or increasing.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The ill effects of the use of separated milk as a food for young calves are due to feeding the calves on such milk without the addition

    701
    of a suitable substitute for the fat which had been removed in the process of separating. In the first few years of the Department's existence the complaints on this subject were very numerous. In recent years, however, there have been very few complaints. This may be attributed to the widespread circulation of the Department's leaflets dealing with the subject of calf feeding, and also to the advice given by the county instructors. Such complaints as have latterly been received by the Department have been attributable to the use of inferior calf meals, which contain a low percentage of fat, and are therefore quite unsuitable for being mixed with separated milk as a food for calves. The majority of these inferior calf meals are sold to farmers by travelling agents of the manufacturing firms. The meals are represented by these agents to be excellent substitutes for mixing with separated milk as a food for calves The Department have had a number of samples of these meals analysed, owing to complaints received from farmers in different districts in Ireland to the effect that when calves are fed on such meals they do not thrive. In these cases the Department have recommended the purchasers to offer payment of the amount which the Department estimated as the full value of these meals—this being approximately 25 per cent. of the price actually charged. When the purchasers were proceeded against by the manufacturers for the full price of the meals, the plea of misrepresentation put in by the defendants has been upheld by the court, and the cases have been dismissed with costs against the manufacturers. The question with regard to the effect of the use of separated milk as food for human beings is not one within the province of this Department.
    MR. GWYNN: Do I understand that the Department has power to prosecute for fraud in such cases?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They have no power.
    MR. HUGH LAWThen are the public compelled to depend solely on the leaflets for information? Are they generally read?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They are widely read, and in the absence of legislative power it is the best thing we can do.

    Down Hand-Loom Weavers.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Vice - President of he Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Government intends to introduce legislation for the defence of the interests of the land-loom weavers in County Down.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Irish hand-looms weavers have asked that it should be made mandatory that the products of Irish damask hand-looms should have woven into them the words "Irish Hand Woven Linen Damask." The selling as Irish hand-woven damask, or goods not coming under that description would constitute a presumptive offence under the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. The matter is now under consideration.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has this action by the hon. Member anything to do with the issue of the writ for West Down?
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: The suggestion that the Question was put down by me in view of that election is a reflection on my intelligence. I desire to state in the most emphatic manner that I do not take the slightest interest in the domestic differences of the Ulester Unionist deadheads.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Have not the Unionist Party been in correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade on this question since August last, and are they not still awaiting an answer?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not aware of it.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Countess of Aberdeen in a speech in the North of Ireland expressed a hope that the Government would legislate on this question? And will the Government give its assistance to pass the Bill brought in by a private Member?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to say lie would be glad to see a Bill introduced.

    Irish Imports of Foreign Fodder.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the County Dublin Farmers' Association protesting against the continued importation of foreign hay, straw, and other commodities constituting mediums through which foot-and-mouth and other diseases are introduced into Ireland, and suggesting that all such commodities before being landed should be subjected to a rigid examination, or excluded if coming from countries where such diseases are known to exist; whether his attention has been directed to another resolution, passed by the association mentioned, to the effect that, in view of the ever present danger of the introduction of foot-and-mouth and other diseases being introduced into Ireland from abroad, all Government advertisements for tenders for hay, straw, and corn, should expressly stipulate for home-grown products of the kind mentioned; and whether any, and, if so, what action will be taken in these matters.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The attention of the Department has been drawn to the resolutions referred to. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me on Monday to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Roscommon, in which I stated the action taken and about to be taken by the Department respecting the prohibition of imports of hay and straw from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease. It is not considered that sufficient grounds at present exist for interference with the importation of any other commodities. The Department cannot interfere with the discretion of other Government Departments as regards the terms of advertisements of the nature referred to. The Department do not purchase foreign hay, straw, or corn. Any supplies of these commodities that they require for their own purposes are obtained locally.

    County Donegal Joint Railway Crossing, near Ballinamore.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the level crossing on the County Donegal Joint Committee Railway line, which is about half a mile from Ballinamore station, at which there is no gatekeeper, but is under the control of an efficient stationmaster, who would be held responsible if an accident occurred, but who is so far away from the crossing he can exercise no proper supervision over the gates, and when trains are passing can give no attention whatever to the crossing; whether he is aware that there is no porter or assistant at this station to close the gates or prevent the people who use the crossing from opening them at risk to themselves and leaving one gate standing across the line in front of the incoming train and thereby exposing the travelling public to danger, and whether he will take immediate steps to have this state of things remedied.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention has not been previously called to this crossing, but I will communicate with the Joint Committee and inform the hon. Member of the result.

    The Government and the Lords.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state if the Government will, during the present session, introduce a Bill dealing with the relations between this House and another place on the lines of the Resolution passed last session.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am not in a position to make any statement.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether the House is to understand that this question is no longer one of extreme urgency, as the right hon. Gentleman stated it was last session?
    MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Gentleman can draw any conclusions he likes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the date on which the Home Rule Motion would be taken.
MR. ASQUITH: We hope to be able to take it on Monday, 30th March.

NEW BILLS.
  HOURS OF LABOUR (BAKEHOUSES) BILL.
  "To restrict the Hours in Bakehouses to eight Hours per day, and not more than forty-eight Hours per week," presented by Mr. Wilkie; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
  HANDLOOM WEAVING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To protect the interests of Handloom Weavers in Ireland; and for other purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. Sloan; supported by Mr. Thomas Corbett, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Glendinning, and Mr. Ward, to be read a second time upon Monday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]
  DEATH CERTIFICATES (CHARGES) BILL.
  "To amend the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Act, 1836, for the purpose of reducing the charges for Death Certificates in certain cases," presented by Mr. Gill; supported by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Bell, Mr. Thorne, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Kelley, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. William Wilson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
  PEDLARS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Pedlars Acts as regards persons for whom certificates shall not be required," presented by Sir George Kekewich; supported by Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Long, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Simon, and Mr. Brooke; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Drunkenness in Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the Marquess of Hamilton; supported by Mr. Moore, Mr. Fetherstonhaugh, and Mr. Thomas Corbett; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
Order for Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): At this time last year it was my duty to lay before the House at some length a programme. Last year the House passed the legislative part of that programme into law, and sanctioned the administrative changes for which the Government asked. My duty to-day is therefore a much lighter one. I have in the main simply to lay before the House a record of progress made. Now, Sir, before I go into those details, and to make them intelligible, I will state very briefly what is the policy of the Government with regard to the Army. The Cardwell system is one about which there has been a great deal of difference of opinion, and I am not going to argue that question, at any rate at this moment. In the memorandum attached to the Estimates I took the opportunity of going in some detail into the reasons which have convinced the Government that that policy is the most useful and, in the end, the most economical; the most economical, certainly, if you take India and other parts of the Empire into account, because departure from the Cardwell system would be to lay a heavy burden upon the finance of India. But,

707
as I said, I am not going to restate the argument now. Suffice it to say that the Government adhere firmly to the Cardwell system, and they will carry to its completion the work the foundations of which were laid by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Cardwell in conjunction. The Cardwell system, if for a moment I may quote mathematicians instead of poets, has the advantage that it reduces the question of the size of the Army to the function of a single variable. That variable is, of course, the number of troops which it is essential at any given time to keep abroad, in the Colonies, and India, and the Crown possessions. That is why I said on Monday night, and why I say again now, that the question of the size of the Army and of its distribution is at no time one which the War Minister can answer unaided. The answer mutt depend on the view of foreign policy taken by the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary for India, and the Colonial Secretary, and it is one that must be determined by the Government as a whole. But the Cardwell system has the advantage that when you have determined the size of the variable you at once determine the size and character of the Army which you will require to support it. It has this further advantage, that it precludes sudden changing and chopping; it gets rid of obscurities, and it gives you a clear principle according to which you can lop off what is unnecessary or build up what is essential. That is why the Government maintain the Cardwell system. Quite apart from India, it is a system which apparently makes for both economy and efficiency. Now, we are about to reap one advantage in connection with the Cardwell system which we have not had, just because the size of the force which we are maintaining abroad is one which varies, and because the happier circumstances of South Africa admit of the withdrawal of a cert in proportion of the garrison. We have it in view, at the end of the summer or in the autumn, to establish a Cardwellian balance of units by bringing home four battalions of infantry and one cavalry regiment from South Africa. That will give us, instead of seventy-eight battalions abroad and seventy at home, seventy-four at home and seventy-four abroad; fourteen regiments of cavalry at home
708
and fourteen abroad. The artillery and other services do not require any alteration, because at the present time the number that we have at home is in excess of what we have abroad. I shall be sorry if in my time anything is done to disturb that balance. The position, therefore, is that if the Cardwell system is adhered to, and if the changing necessities of the distribution of troops abroad are met by men from units abroad rather than by sending unit? from home—a thing which I think can be done much more than it has been done—you get this good result, that you are freed from the necessity of having the costly machinery of provisional battalions and depots, to my mind a most wasteful way of training soldiers and providing for drafts, and you have the simple principle that every unit at home serves two purposes. In peace it is a training school, not a fighting unit at all; in war it is mobilised with its Reserve into a fighting unit. That is why we say you get both economy and efficiency. That is why an almost unbroken succession of military opinion has pronounced for maintaining the Cardwell system. There is another advantage that the system gives you. You have to keep certain number of troops—whether you keep them in depots or in units—to provide drafts for the forces abroad. But if, according to the Cardwell system, you keep them in units—units, which in time of peace have a very small establishment, but in war would be mobilised to their full fighting strength—then you are in a position to organise a very much better and more efficient expeditionary force than you would otherwise possess. I mean by an expeditionary force, not the small Striking Force which is used for emergencies, and which is specially provided for in the organisation of our Reserves, but a force which on mobilisation you can produce in an organised form, and which would be in a position to take the field abroad and to operate with the Navy without the necessity of improvising an organisation for it. The second part of the Government policy has been to organise such an expeditionary force within the limits of the troops which it is necessary to maintain at home under any system for the purpose of feeding the

709
units abroad. I draw attention to this because there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about it. People have asked why we should have an expeditionary force of 160,000 men. The answer is this. You have to have the men for the expeditionary force, and a good many more. At any rate, the 160,000 men are not all men with the colours. On the contrary, a great proportion of them are Reservists and men not serving with the colours. Of the 160,000 men of the expeditionary force 61,000 are actively serving with the colours, 70,000 are serving with the Reserve, and 24,000 are engaged in the ancillary services and trained on the Militia basis. Therefore your expeditionary force, which consists of only 61,000 men serving with the colours, is really a small force compared with the number that it is necessary to keep at home for the purpose of providing for your units abroad. This expeditionary force will be organised far within the limits of the home establishment that you possess at the present time. If there are seventy-four battalions at home and sixty-six are required for the expeditionary force, there will be eight battalions surplus besides the extra battalions of guards. The same is true of the cavalry—you have got surplus regiments there—and the same is true of the artillery. Therefore the expeditionary force is not eating up a single man whom you would not otherwise require to keep up, and the only cost involved is the comparatively small cost of putting it into organised form. The Government believe that the organisation of the expeditionary force in this fashion is a truly economical procedure, and one that doe3 not add to your burdens. The third principle that the Government has had in view is the substitution of two lines for the old arrangement, under which there were three or four lines according to how you looked at them. We had the Regular force. We had the Regular first line of which we have made the old Militia an organic part. And we have the second line, which is the old Volunteer-Yeomanry organisation, brought up to a true Militia organisation, and organised and equipped as nearly as possible on the model of the first or Regular line. These are the
710
four elements in the policy which I described last year. Our first object was to get a force with some kind of scientific organisation, in which we could see by looking at it whether any unit was in excess or deficient. We have been trying to bring that better state of things about. I am far from underrating the difficulties of the task; there is an enormous amount to be done. When I produce presently the record of what we have accomplished, I hope the House will take it from me that it is in no spirit of boasting, but really with a desire to show the House that we have done something tangible towards the accomplishment of a piece of work which, will extend over many years and take, not one, but several Governments to bring to perfection. All we have been able to do is comparatively little compared with what remains to be done to complete the plan. But at least we have organised this force in divisions which can co-operate with the Navy, for a Navy without an Army is hardly less useless than an Army without a Navy. The effect of lopping off a surplus organisation has been to bring the numbers down to what they were just before the war of 1899. I think there is an excess of some 7,000 or 8,000 men. There are people who are not there in the main for combatant purposes—medical units, ancillary services, and to some extent artillery. The artillery certainly were in a very unsatisfactory position at that time, and the Government of the day did absolutely right in increasing the artillery force. But if you compare the figures of what the Army stood at just before the war, and what it is now you will find there is a difference of only 5,000 or 6,000 men, and these extras were due, not to the combatants, but to what I might call the ancillary services. The combatant element is not larger but it is organised in a fashion it never was before.
Let me say a word about the progress made with the expeditionary force. The House will remember that the Army Order organising it into six divisions was dated 1st January last year, and the organisation of the six divisions and the four brigades of cavalry which accompanies them are complete. The

711
artillery consists of fifty-four field batteries, ten horse, twelve howitzers, and six heavy batteries, and we are engaged on the perfecting of the artillery organisation. The next step was that while the force was organised it was not effective until the mobilisation tables were complete. We set to work and they were completed in May last year. The next step was to get the equipment complete, and the equipment is all complete except certain small items for which provision is made in the present Estimates. But there is something which is not perfect, and that is the provision for wastage in the ancillary services, including the ammunition columns. The position of things at present is this—that only forty-two out of the requisite fifty-four field batteries can be mobilised for want of ammunition columns, and we have set ourselves to work to convert the Garrison Militia Artillery and to introduce machinery for further producing the requisite men trained on a Militia basis, for the purpose of mobilising these ammunition columns. I will tell the House presently how far we have proceeded with that. Meantime, it is sufficient to say that the Army Order of 23rd December, organised the whole of the Special Reserve for the purpose of infantry and artillery, and the scheme as it was explained to the House last year is in course of being carried out. The right hon. Gentleman will remember this well, because he and I came to a kind of covenant about the Infantry Special Reserve, and I have endeavoured to adhere to that in spirit and in letter. We have organised 101 battalions of the Infantry Special Reserve, which will ultimately be 580 strong. These are distributed—seventy-four to the depots and twenty-seven elsewhere. The depot battalions take the place of the old depots, but we save the cost of the regular infantry depots in that fashion and they train drafts for the Regular Army, and also drafts for their own establishments. We have set these training battalions to work, and presently I shall be able to give some account of how they are progressing in the way of getting their recruits. But I want to point out that we gave an undertaking to the Militia—it was, I think, given in the other House—that we would not disband any
712
of them until after the next training. In order to carry out that promise I shall have to make the cost of the Special Reserve somewhat larger this year than it will be in future years, because I have to provide for that Militia training and for a number of Militiamen. Moreover, we do not discharge any man from the Militia—we absorb him into these new battalions, 101 in place of 124—therefore some of these Special Reserve battalions will be much larger in numbers than their ultimate establishment will be. Some of them will have a very large strength of Militia battalions. So much for the Special Reserve.
Now I come to the fifth item with which we have been dealing this year, and that is the Reserve of Officers. The question of officers is a very serious one, and I shall have something to say about it later on. We have set the machinery I described last year to work, and the Reserve of Officers is—I will not call it a going concern—at any rate, actually in its infancy. The last thing I have to mention is the very comprehensive topic of the Territorial Army, to which I will come in its turn. I am able to pass over the first four of these items—the expeditionary force, mobilisation, equipment, and general structure of the expeditionary force—because these have been gone into at other times, and I come at once to the Special Reserve. As I have said, the 101 infantry battalions have all been organised, and recruiting has commenced for the Special Reserve as from 16th January. The House knows what the plan of the Special Reserve is. We are anxious to get to a larger class to recruit for the Special Reserve than the Militia could reach. The Militia used to train for two periods in the year; there was the recruit training and the regular Militia training. We have made the recruit training longer and the annual training shorter. The annual training will be only some twenty-one days, as against six months' recruit training. We are so organising the new battalions that we hope to appeal to a considerable class who have not hitherto come into the Militia to come in and take six months' training, with good pay and good food and good healthy exercise,

713
at these new battalions head-quarters. So far there is every indication at present that the process is one that is likely to succeed, and recruits are coming in very well. Possibly that is due to the fact that we have increased the pay of the recruit by 3d. a day from the commencement, in order that he may have a better messing allowance. We lay a good deal of stress on the food during the first six months. Whereas formerly he had to wait to get this, he now gets this 3d. a day during his first six months. But, whatever the reason, the Special Reserve, although only open some six weeks, is recruiting very well. The Special Reservist will have 308 days initial training as against the old Militia training of 207 days. I hope it may be possible to arrange that a good deal of the initial training may be in winter, so that whenever possible any young man who finds himself out of a job at the end of the summer can come in and get six months' good food and good exercise, and be turned out at the end of the six months at a period of the year when he can seek a fresh job, and his chance of employment be not interfered with by having had too long a training. Elasticity in this is everything. Of course, we are now in the experimental stage, and it is impossible to predict how this is going to turn out, but the first indications are good.
I will now say something about the artillery training brigades. As the House knows, we had the other day ninty-nine batteries of field artillery and we only wanted for the expeditionary force fifty-four batteries of field artillery, and this is an illustration of the advantage of the Cardwell system. We know exactly how many batteries of artillery we want for the expeditionary force. We may require some batteries, of course, for other troops who do not leave this country with the expeditionary force, but we have a large surplus that we could not use for any expedition. The House need not be nervous about this. We have not abolished a single man. We have taken thirty-three of these batteries and organised them into training brigades.
MR. WYNDHAM: But have you organised them?
MR. HALDANE: Yes, we have organised them into eleven training brigades, and they are actually at work training men. The result of that is that these eleven training brigades, carrying out the policy I announced last year, are now training Special Reservists to form the ammunition columns of the artillery and will get a training which will enable them as individuals to work up into the brigade columns, ammunition columns, and ultimately the best of them into the battery lines. We have saved 2,400 Regulars who are not necessary for the establishment of the thirty-three batteries, which are on a training brigade footing. These 2,400 Regulars we have kept, and propose to keep, until we can replace each man by four or five trained Militiamen for the same money, and with the advantage of having converted the money that used to go to Garrison Militia Artillery to this purpose. Assuming that this plan succeeds, we shall be able to equip the Artillery with its requisite am unition columns, and not only put fifty-four field batteries with the Expeditionary Force, mobilised with their ammunition columns, but also make large provision for the wastage of war. With the eleven training brigades we estimate we shall be able to produce 15,000 men, who will ultimately take the place of the 2,400, of whom I have spoken. In that case we shall be able, not only completely to mobilise with the Regulars, the batteries, and the brigade ammunition columns, but we shall have a large Reserve for wastage in time of war behind. So much for the Artillery plans. To show how impossible it is to predict how anything will work out, I will instance one curious thing. I made up my mind when we abolished, or, rather, converted, the Garrison Artillery into a Reserve of Field Artillery, that, as horsemanship would be wanted, and drivers would be asked to come forward, in Ireland, where everybody is good at a horse, we should find plenty of people; whereas in my native country. Scotland, where I will not say nobody, but few, people are good at a horse as compared with Ireland ["Oh"]—I speak for myself—I thought artillerymen would not have come forward. But there has actually been a tremendous influx of people who wish

715
to become artillery drivers in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the north, while Ireland is rather hanging back. But, on the whole, the recruiting for this new branch of the Special Reserve is doing very well. The men of the disbanded infantry Militia battalions are coming in very well, some 60 per cent. of them have already come over straight to the new Special Reserve. The Special Reserve also includes a minor part, which I may call B, as distinguished from the two Regular branches of Infantry and Artillery, the men of which we hope to get through the Territorial Force. We want medical assistants, extra engineers, army service corps, transport, and so on. That will be a much smaller element in the force, but still it will be considerable. As this Special Reserve is very large and a novelty in the Army, the House will be anxious to know how much it is going to cost. To begin with, we have the advantage that the depôts are already there, and their cost charged to the Regulars, so that you have the machinery ready to hand. The result is that the total cost of the Special Reserve compares very favourably with the cost of the old Militia. There are fewer units, fewer headquarters, and a considerably smaller establishment of strength. The old Militia system cost the country £1,986,000; the new Special Reserve in its normal form will cost £1,955,000 so that it will cost £31,000 less than the old Militia system. This year, however, the Special Reseve, inasmuch as we have got to keep the two systems going for a time, will cost £2,119,000, which is £164,000 above what it will normally cost. That will be saved in the future. When the enormous advantage is considered that the Special Reserve presents over the Militia system, since you have got it ready to go abroad, and since it enables you to mobilise your expeditionary force, and makes that effective in a fashion that could not formerly be contemplated, one sees that we have got in it an element that was absolutely requisite to give a perfectly scientific organisation for the British Army. The Special Reserve is in its infancy, and all I can say yet is that its early days promise well.
I spoke last year of the very formidable deficiency of officers in the Army, and pointed
716
out that we were deficient in the quantity and also in the quality, because the training we give them is not in all respects a satisfactory training. On that topic I will speak with reference to the policy of the Government. It is absolutely essential that, with an intricate machine such as the British Army, you should have highly trained minds to direct it. The more the science of war advances the greater are the calls upon the intelligence and science of your officers. Those calls are growing year by year, and every nation is feeling the burden more and more. You cannot get that supply altogether, or even to a large extent, by promotion from the ranks. The Army Council encourages such promotion, we think it good, and we promote those recommended to us from the Regulars. But you cannot get any large number of officers so, and the reasons are plain. First, the want of previous training stands in the way, and then there are other difficulties. You can get some, but you cannot in that way count on a substantial contribution of sufficiently highly trained minds to make your machine work effectively and swiftly. Education and promotion for ability are the two things to which one must look. The figures of the deficiency of officers are, and have been for many years past, rather formidable. At the most difficult time of the South African war the wonder was that the nation got through as well as it did. We are over 5,000 short for mobilisation for the British and Colonial establishments, and we are besides that over 3,000 short for India, a total of over 8,000 short. For mobilisation, exclusive of India, we want a total of 13,000 odd, and we have over 8,000 if you include about 1,500 officers who belong to the old Reserve, and are on retired pay, and who have to come out to serve the country in the case of war. The result is that for home alone we have a deficiency of over 5,000. It was my duty to put before the House a plan for getting a new Reserve of officers. We estimate that if that new machinery works satisfactorily it will give us, when it becomes effective, the requisite number. We have called certain principles to our aid, one is the analogy of the reserve officer on the Continent, the basis of whose

717
training is that theoretically to qualify in the requisite knowledge a man serve a year à la suite with a unit. Then he is qualified to become a reserve officer. We calculate on getting a certain number of young men who are going into the professions, or who are likely to succeed to property, and whose parents may be glad for their sons to have a year of military training, which might be taken at home, but better still might be taken in India. At any rate the year's service with a battalion would give the first category of those we hope to get, and we think that probably a considerable number of those who have gone into the Militia up to now will join the new Reserve of Officers, and that will be a benefit to the Regular Army just as much as the Militia has been in the past. The second source is the Universities and public schools. I entered into a covenant with the House, which I intend to keep, in spirit and letter, when the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act was under consideration, not to bring the military element into the State-aided schools. But there are other schools which are on quite a different footing, the great public schools, which have their cadet corps at the present time. The headmasters of these public schools have been very keen to work with us in introducing this second branch of the Reserve of Officers. We have been in communication with over 130 of them, and, carrying out the principles which the House sanctioned last year, we are now setting up training corps, one branch of which will be in these schools and the other in the Universities. We are in communication, I think, with fourteen universities at this moment, with regard to converting their Volunteer corps into training corps. The General Staff has taken over the management of this matter, and has organised a special department for these duties, for which provision will be made in the Estimates. It will be the duty of three or four officers to superintend the work of these training corps. We have also established two specially selected officers at Oxford and Cambridge whose duty it is to superintend the organisation of the corps on the spot. We propose to organise in the schools Officers' Training Corps which will correspond to and absorb the old cadet battalions
718
of the schools, where a young man who hopes to take some part in the military life of his country will get two years training, at the end of which he may pass for certificate A, which will be very much the equivalent of what is necessary to qualify him to be a lieutenant, and will, at any rate, enable him to go into the Territorial Force with a lieutenant's commission. But if he chooses to go on and take Certificate B, he will have to get that at the University, and do two years with the University branch of the Officers' Training Corps. If he does that he will then have the qualification and knowledge that will approach very near to a captain's. Anybody who has a certificate A, only will be able to go to the unit and serve there for only eight months, getting four months off. Anybody in the second year at the university training corps will get another four months off, so that we have eight months off altogether, but no candidate will be qualified for a commission in the Reserve of Officers unless his commanding officer approves and certifies him. The General Staff has carefully elaborated the training for this corps, and in a few days an Army order will appear giving the full details. In the schools there is a very large cadet corps. We hope to get some 12,500 boys from the cadet corps to work with, and from the Universities we should be able to get 2,000 or 3,000. From these we might hope to get, in course of time, if the scheme were working at full strength, over 800 officers a year for the Special Reserve. Here again I wish to guard myself. We are setting this machinery going, but I do not wish to be taken at all as confidently predicting the success of the scheme. It is an experiment, but it is only by experiment that it is possible to make any progress. And yet the great problem of the deficiency of officers has got to be faced and cannot be shelved. We have taken £2,000 in the Estimate this year for this purpose and we took the same last year, and that will cover us for some time. The increased cost, which will be about £150,000 a year, will be covered by automatic reductions which will be in operation long before we get to that time. If the scheme succeeds in producing officers for the Reserve to the strength we hope, I think it will be

719
a cheap scheme. Such an officer in the Special Reserve will get £40 outfit allowance, and £20 a year as a retaining fee and his pay while he is out. We hope the career is one which will prove attractive to the class of young man who is going into the educational professions, the schoolmaster—schoolmasters are very keen about it—the doctor, the lawyer, or many other professions where probably in the early years he will have a good deal more leisure than at a later period, and in which, moreover, he will wish to have a second string to his bow in case law or medicine does not smile upon him.
I now come to the question of quality, and what I am now going to say applies to all officers and particularly to the Regular officers. The problem of the education of our officers and their training is a serious one. Great progress has been made, but there is still a great deal to be done. Before 1902 the system in vogue was a system of book knowledge, which lent opportunities for cramming to an undue degree. Then there came the Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent—a very valuable Report because it grappled with the difficulty; and I think great credit is due to those who devised it, to Lord Midleton, who initiated the proposal, and to the right hon. Gentleman who worked out the changes made at that time. They superseded the old-fashioned garrison instructor, and the system they adopted was one which aimed at producing a practically trained officer. In appreciating what they did and what they were not able to do it is necessary to bear in mind that the professional life of an officer has four stages. There is, first of all, his general education, altogether outside the Army. The next stage is that spent at Sandhurst or Woolwich before he gets his commission. That is followed by the third step, which is of a much longer character. When the young officer gets his commission he has a period from his early twenties till he reaches the age of, say, thirty-five, in which there is no adequate provision for his instruction at all. That is the most serious period, and it is one for which we have to provide. It is the period during which the officer has no opportunity—
720
of which many of them would avail themselves if they had—for making himself efficient in the science of war. The fourth stage comes only to those who seek the highest branches of the military profession, and that is the training for the General Staff and the higher commands, which is required from those who aim at being masters of the science of war and war organisation. About the first two stages I say nothing; they are tolerably satisfactory, except that Sandhurst is a great deal too small. We are adding to it very largely—practically doubling the accommodation. Coming to the intermediate stage, the Akers-Douglas Report, abolishing the old garrison instructor, entrusted the practical training and examination of officers to local examining boards, organised by the general officers commanding and the staff under them. They are a great improvement upon what used to obtain, but still they are not up to the modern level, and the reason is this. The general officer commanding and the battalion commander have a great deal to do. Very often they are men of a practical rather than an educational mind, and it is imposing a great additional burden to call on them to do educational work for which they may not be naturally qualified, and the result is that there is great unevenness in the kind of instruction and examination. The examination board consists of men who necessarily, according to the Army system, are chosen with some reference to their rank, and you may not be able to get a good examining officer of the proper rank. Anyhow, the result is, we feel, that the system is unsatisfactory and must be reconsidered. When I come to the fourth head, the General Staff, the system of education is admirable. I cannot speak too highly of it. But there again we have not enough trained men for the Staff College. We have accommodation at Camberley for seventy and at Quetta for fifty. They work in close communication, but they are not identical. We take their people and they take ours. But the Staff College is too small for our requirements; we have not enough instructors. The staff is very good, but the strain on it is too great. In the last eighteen months we have set to work another body which is training, not for staff

721
work, but for administrative work—the London School of Economics. That has been a great success and it has created a great deal of interest, and already the officers who have attended that school are beginning to find the fruit of their studies recognised by promotion. That has been a help to us, but it does not touch the General Staff work properly so called. We have got to do something to raise the level of the instruction and training of the officer during the period from twenty-two to thirty-five. The reason why we want to do more is twofold. In the first place the standard of education in the Army is rising rapidly. The divisional organisation is rising. The training of troops has been modified in such a fashion that you want more skill and more knowledge in the officer than formerly, and, moreover, the General Staff is of a higher standard of education all round. It is a great mistake to suppose you have made a General Staff when you have brought the officers together and labelled them General Staff officers. That is not a General Staff at all. In order to get a General Staff you want a long time; a tradition must grow up, a corps must form itself—a corps of men actuated by a common purpose, of divergent mind, it may be, but still concentrated on the accomplishment of a common purpose and permeated by certain central ideas relating to military thought. Such a body must take time to grow, and although we have at the War Office an organisation which is improving month by month, and the effect of which has been already very great in the organisation of the Army, still we all feel that two years time will make a very great difference in what the General Staff is. But a true General Staff is a body which does not remain concentrated at the War Office. A General Staff is a body which is becoming more and more important in its influence, not merely at headquarters, but out in the commands and in the training centres, and for that matter all over the Empire. The result is that the General Staff is asking, and properly asking, for higher military knowledge in the regimental officers. We want to assist the regimental officer in a way we have not been able to assist him hitherto. We want to give him more
722
chance of instruction, not the old garrison instruction, but instruction that is not merely practical instruction, given by men whose minds have been permeated by General Staff teaching, and who will go down to the command and work with the general officer commanding and his staff on the spot for the purpose of providing facilities for acquiring knowledge and for study which do not exist at the present time. We want to control the spirit of the promotions examination in the same fashion. We want to provide chances of higher appointments, not necessarily to the General Staff, but to the large and growing class of intermediate staff appointments, which is constantly coming more into existence in connection with the Territorial Force. By throwing open the chance of appointment to these new positions we hope to do something to stimulate the regimental officer. Just now he has far too little chance, his life is too restricted. He has a feeling that he has entered a costly profession without obtaining any adequate opening. We want to make the position of the officer in this respect a little more attractive than it has been. We shall give a chance after a little while of specialising. One man may have one talent and another man another talent. We must see their work and give them opportunities of showing how they will shape. Therefore, the examinations should allow for a certain amount of selection and the record should be taken into account. A thorough grounding in regimental work is necessary before there can be any specialisation, but after specialisation you may possibly open the field of selection to the Staff College and open it to some of those other appointments of which I have spoken. How are we going to do that? It is extremely difficult because it is extremely vague. You have a good system working in the Akers-Douglas system if only certain modifications are made to bring it up to date—to bring it up with the rapid changes made between 1902 and the present year, and the equally rapid changes which are, I am sure, in front of us. We ought to be very cautious about rushing in advance of experience. We want experience to guide us; and it is, therefore, well to proceed tentatively, making experiments in certain commands to begin with. I

723
beg the House to consider me as merely thinking aloud about the very difficult problem which we are trying to solve. I think we should do wisely at present to concentrate ourselves on experimenting carefully and to select commands which are most fit for the purpose. In the second place, we should have to select in detail more instructors than at the present time, and these instructors must be persons who are in accord with the spirit of the General Staff. It is evolution rather than revolution which is wanted in this case. It is essential that the proceeding should be very deliberate. In the course of the summer I hope we may make a tentative beginning. At present the General Staff is considering the be3t means by which the new departure may be made. Although we are looking ahead, we have not been idle during the past year. One matter in which our officers were very hardly treated was the want of opportunities for studying foreign languages. We have established this year classes in French and German at the chief military centres. When we have found officers who are willing to devote their leave to going abroad to study we have given them a contribution towards their expenses. I am speaking of all the countries where there are better known European and Oriental languages. In the case of the most difficult languages we have detailed officers to go abroad at Army charges and study these languages so as to be available as interpreters and for General Staff purposes. In order to encourage the study of Oriental and other languages, the Civil Service Commission have met us very handsomely. For interpreter-ships they hold their examinations in foreign languages abroad at the military stations. They are examining just now in Arabic at Cairo, for instance, where there are officers with the battalions which we have sent to Egypt who are taking the opportunity of acquiring an Oriental language. Last year forty officers spent their leave abroad. A sum of £2,500 appeared in the Estimates last year for this purpose, and it has served its purpose very well.
MR. REES: Is there any other Oriental language
724
being studied in this way and under these conditions, besides Arabic?
MR. HALDANE: Not at Cairo, but the principle has been established and the-Civil Service Commissioners will examine wherever they have examinations. I have finished what I have to say on this big and very difficult subject of officers. It is the most difficult subject which the War Office has in hand at the present time, and it will require much time. I have no hope of solving this problem rapidly. We must proceed tentatively, and I have indicated certain lines on which we hope to proceed. With thoroughness, patience, and continuity of policy I think a good deal may be done. But not till then can it be said that the British Army is properly equipped and organised.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain if there is any difference as to the mode of taking officers into the Special Reserve and into the Militia, except in the special case of getting regular officers into the Special Reserve?
MR. HALDANE: The mode of access to the Special Reserve is three-fold. At present officers may come into the Special Reserve through the Universities and Public Schools, but there are two other entrances by which they can come in.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: In place of the old one.
MR. HALDANE: Yes. The old one is not very much liked. There are two general observations which I wish to make before I sit down. Since last November we have been giving 3d. extra to the recruit. The recruit is at the growing stage, and there is nothing on which attention has been more concentrated than the improvement of his spiritual, mental, and bodily condition. The pay of the Army is one of the items which strike people as being more costly than they used to be. There is a growth in pay of £2,000,000. I want to justify that, and I hope I may be able to convince hon. Members that one of the best things that has been done with

725
this big body of 250,000 men has been to spend money on feeding them better and improving their pay and general social conditions. The result of our policy is that the class of recruits is undoubtedly improving. The consensus of reports from the districts is to this effect. The pay, the additional comforts, and the prospects of the soldier are having a marked effect. There are many indications to prove this, but perhaps the most satisfactory is the decrease of wastage. Wastage may be comprised under the following heads: Invaliding, men discharged within three months of their enlistment as not likely to make efficient soldiers, and men discharged for misconduct. In 1903–4, the number of invalids was 4,973; in 1904–5, owing to the efforts of my predecessor, who gave great attention to this subject of wastage, the number fell to 4,226; in 1905–6 it was 3,234; last year it dropped to 2,928; and I have no doubt that this year it is again falling. I now come to those who are not likely to become efficient. We now select more carefully the men whom we take. Recruits are coming in owing to the improved conditions in such a way that we can pick and choose. The number of those rejected as not likely to become efficient was in 1903–4, 1,373; in 1904–5, 1,822; in 1905–6, 1,248; and in 1906–7, 928. In 1903–4 there were 3,656 cases of men discharged for misconduct; in 1904–5, 3,090; in 1905–6, 2,121; in 1906–7, 2,119. This is a tremendous drop. Under all the heads wastage has diminished from 10,002 in 1903–4 to 5,975 in 1906–7, a decrease of 4,000. I think that is a most satisfactory result, on which the country may congratulate itself.
We are taking other steps to improve the condition of the soldier, to enable him to realise the advantage of saving money, and to show him how even small sums may amount to a considerable total in a number of years. Instructions have been given that the schoolmasters and inspectors are to draw attention to this matter. I was struck two years ago with this—that there was a disease in the Army, of which I had not become cognisant elsewhere, but of which the evidences were unmistakeable and that is what is
726
known as "soldier's heart." It appeared that the heart of the soldier became more easily affected than the heart of any other class. We therefore appointed a highly qualified committee of very distinguished medical men, physiologists, together with practical officers, to sit under the Director-General of the Army Medical Service and to inquire into the whole system of the physical training of the soldier. This committee traced "soldier's heart" to the old-fashioned system of doing exercises, and we have substituted for it the Danish system of training. The great advantage under the new conditions is that physical exercises are based not only on military requirements, but on medical expert advice as to their effect. The Report states that the new exercises tend to develop the intelligence of the men, that they are capable of being performed without undue distress to them and are more interesting in their nature, and they will undoubtedly diminish admission to hospital for disordered action of the heart. So much for physical exercises.
I am glad to say that under other heads things are improving very much. The Director-General of the Army Medical Service reports to me for the purposes of this statement that improvements have already begun to accrue from the steps which have been taken towards the prevention of disease and consequent inefficiency of the Army. For instance, whereas the average yearly number of cases of Malta fever was for the years 1896 to 1905 over 150 in every 1,000 men of the garrison, in 1907 the number had fallen to two in every 1,000 men. This represents a saving of about 40,000 days pay in a year to the British Government, taking into account only the days spent in hospital, and not the loss and expense entailed by death and invaliding. That is, I think, a remarkable tribute to the achievements of science. This improvement, the Report states, may be directly attributed to scientific discoveries lately made, in large part, by officers of the department. As a result of the steps which have been taken in consequence of these discoveries the disease may be regarded as practically stamped out. I think

727
I ought here to acknowledge how much we owe to this Committee and also to the Royal Society for the deep interest it has taken in this matter. The Committee also say—
"We can also report for the year 1907 a considerable improvement in the health of the British Army in India in respect of three important diseases—enteric fever, venereal disease, and malarial fever. We regard this satisfactory state of affairs as a direct result of the increased attention paid by all the authorities concerned, both military and medical, to sanitation in cantonments. The improvement in venereal disease may be attributed to an increase in temperance and an improvement in general moral tone throughout the ranks of the Army."
I may say in connection with the Army Medical Service that we have this year opened a new medical college in London which will, we hope, greatly facilitate the education of these most valuable officers of the Army—the officers of the Army Medical Service. As regards temperance, I have given instruction that, wherever it is possible, an Army tent may be placed at the disposal of the temperance organisation of the battalion, and we have taken every step we can to encourage the cause. The growth of temperance in the Army is marked and satisfactory. We have improved dining arrangements, and done many other things which conduce to the well-being of the men. Another thing I would mention is this. Two years ago we abolished flogging in the Army. We have had no reason to regret it, and we have been able to follow it up with an Army Order which has made considerable changes in regard to punishment. Under the new regulations only the graver offences, dealt with by entry in regimental conduct sheets, are taken into account in assessing a soldier's character, while minor entries, dealt with by entry in company sheets, are wiped out by subsequent good conduct, the company sheets being destroyed on discharge. Provision is being made for the abolition of company conduct sheets for noncommissioned officers of the rank of colour-sergeant or upwards, and the wearing of plain clothes under certain conditions has been extended to colour-sergeants. All that seems to me to show that progress is being made in the solution of the social question and the well-being of the great mass of the people. You cannot separate the social
728
condition of the Army from that of the rest of the population. Mixing as they do with the general population, your soldiers ought to be of the highest class, and, whatever view may be taken about other questions of economy, I hope I have convinced the House that the £2,000,000 spent in improving the conditions and pay in the Army have been well spent.
In the case of the infantry we have put them on a seven and five years service, which will give us an adequate Reserve. The Reserve is now enormous—135,000.
MR. WYNDHAM: The effective strength of the Reserve on 1st January was, I think, about 129,000. Is this 6,000 an accumulation since 1st January?
MR. HALDANE: It has been growing up very fast. We do not, of course, estimate the Reserve at that figure. I gave the figures last year as something like 115,000. The effective strength at this moment is 135,000, and it is still rising. As regards the cavalry, I wish to say this. We have got now a complete infantry organisation and a complete artillery organisation, but we have not a complete cavalry organisation, because the cavalry has not got depots. At one time it was thought that you could train the men without depots, but we believe they require depots, and what we propose is to establish tentatively, say, half-a-dozen small depots for the cavalry. We have determined this in principle, but we have taken no active steps yet in determining what the particular places shall be. One reason for that is that we want to bring the Regular cavalry into relations with the Yeomanry. We think it would be a great pity if we did not succeed in bringing the cavalry and groups of Yeomanry regiments into relations with one another. It is an excellent thing for the Yeomanry regiments that there should be a sort of centre of instruction. What we hope to establish is depots which will be the centres for groups of Regular cavalry and Yeomanry regiments. Last year I expressed my hope that the Yeomanry were going to give us fourteen squadrons for service abroad, who would take six

729
months training for service abroad with the Special Reserve. It has been found, however, that that is not possible, as they cannot do the amount of training required. The result is we have had to modify somewhat our cavalry organisation. The new war organisation of the cavalry consists of this—first, there is the strategic cavalry division, which consists of four brigades of twelve regiments with four batteries. Then there comes the protective screen between the main force and the adversary, and that consisted last year of something a little different from what it consists of to-day. To-day it consists of four regiments of Regular cavalry and two battalions of mounted infantry. That is what I think we shall settle. We intended to have more mounted infantry, but being unable to get the fourteen squadrons from the Yeomanry, we have been compelled to put in more Regular cavalry. Then there are the divisional mounted troops, and these will consist of mounted infantry and the Irish Yeomanry and any other regiment of Yeomanry which will volunteer to serve. The Irish Yeomanry forming part of the Special Reserve will be able to render the service asked of them. That is the modification of our cavalry proposals. It may not be the final form, but it is the form we are now working on.
Now I pass to the Territorial Force. I am not going to dwell on that, as I shall, no doubt, have to answer a great many questions as to it in the course of the discussion. All I have got to say is that the arrangements are nearly complete, that the reason why there has been so much pulling about of the Volunteers is that the whole disposition of the force has been made on a General Staff basis with a view to coast defence. The purpose has been so to arrange the force as to ensure points where invasion would be likely, so that an enemy would be obliged to bring large bodies of troops in transports, and consequently to have many transports. If you can force up the number of transports, then you have the objective which has always been the historical objective of the British Navy when dealing with an invading force. We should not go for the battleships, but
730
for the transports. The very essence of our traditions has been to strike at the transports. If the force with which your enemy makes his invasion is great, then in his transports he presents targets for the Fleet to aim at. Knowing this, he will send smaller forces for making raids, for which we organise. I have taken an Estimate for 315,000 men of the Territorial Force, and I want to make it clear to Members of the House, for I know there have been local complaints of pulling about of existing organisations, that there is a deep reason at the bottom of the whole matter; the organisation of the Territorial Force is for the country as a whole, so that the various possibilities of invasion may be adequately provided for and dealt with. If everybody comes up after 31st March, I shall have 315,000 men to provide for, and the cost will be a matter of interest to the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield has said that I have departed from my original proposals, but that is not so. The cost of the Auxiliary Forces under the old system was £4,400,000, and the original Estimate of the new Territorial Force was £2,890,000; that was at the time excluding the Militia. Since then, however, the Militia have come over, and in my then Budget I pointed out the saving from the formation of the Special Reserve. Taking out for this £2,000,000, that left the cost at about £2,500,000. But what will the Territorial Force cost? At first we began with £2,890,000. Now the House is in favour of economy in the abstract; but when we come to close quarters the platonic love for economy sometimes disappears. So in this case; and the various additions made to figures in the original Estimate brought up the cost to £3,579,000.
MR. WYNDHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had included expenditure under every Vote, and was the Estimate made upon the total number or on the basis of the number likely to come in.
MR. HALDANE: I will make it perfectly clear. The figure is £3,579,000, that being with the additions made by the House, for 315,000 men maintained at a war strength, as a going concern

731
with 126,000 horses. But that is supposing every man cames out for fifteen days training, and during a time of peace we do not want that number of horses. We have calculated what the Force will cost upon the enlarged figures and on a peace strength for 315,000 men, but with much fewer horses. With the saving that will accrue from diminishing the number of horses by some 70,000 and from the saving by estimating that 80 per cent. of the men will camp for eight days or over, the estimated cost of the force is £3,000,000. This is what I have to budget for as the cost of the Territorial Army on a peace footing from year to year. How do I budget this year? I have to bear in mind that it is impossible to expect that all the Volunteers and Yeomanry will have to come; they will fall very short; and we cannot blind our eyes to the fact that many things are going on. I have asked myself the question what money shall I want for the Territorial Force? If I take the full cost, and do not get the full number of men next year, then I lay myself under reproach for taking more money from the taxpayers than I am able to spend. If, on the other hand, I take too little, I bear in mind that the House does not like Supplementary Estimates. I am in a peculiarly difficult position, for I cannot tell how many men will come in—nobody can tell. In the result I prefer in making my calculation to take a little less, even at the risk of having to ask for a Supplementary Estimate, rather than take an amount I may not be able to spend. I have made a very close calculation, and I think I ought to take five-sixths of the money, calculating that not all the men will come to camp. I have calculated what is likely to happen, and if I am wrong I must come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate, but I do not think I shall have to do that when I take a little over £2,500,000.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid there were £2,000,000 for pay and allowances. He supposed the other £500,000 would come under other Votes, clothing, transport, and so on.
MR. HALDANE: That is so. If the right hon. Gentleman will do a
732
little arithmetical sum he will find that £2,510,000 includes all the charges and compares with £3,000,000, which is the full cost. But, as I have pointed out, there will be a saving of £160,000 on account of the Special Reserve, and there are other savings which will take off the remainder. I have provided this year at the outset £300,000 for the expenditure on clothing, and next year there will still be that item, but smaller in amount for new recruits. The new Territorial Force is going to cost a great deal more per man than the old forces of Volunteers and Yeomanry. Where we paid £6 10s. per man we are going to pay £9 for a more efficient man. It is, therefore, £3,000,000 as against £2,500,000, but there are the Special Reserve savings and the droppings out of the initial costs. That is all, I think, I need say about the Territorial Force, except that we provided in the initial cost for getting rid of debts on halls and personal debts. Therefore, I think we have done pretty well financially without increasing the Estimates, providing out of savings and—I will not quarrel about the word "savings," but money not spent, though at any rate we put it on the Estimates—£800,000 plus £300,000 plus £150,000, for the initial starting and non-recurrent expenditure not adding a penny for the purpose to the Estimate. I think it reflects great credit—not on myself, I am merely the mouthpiece—but on the financial authorities at the War Office, my hon. friend who sits near me and his staff, who have worked this out and have allayed the terrors about enormous expenditure of which we have heard so much. Of course, for the additions made to the original Estimate I am not responsible; the House accepted them, and the equipment on an adequate footing for £3,000,000 is the result at which I have arrived after careful minute investigation with the best expert advice I could get.
There are one or two other matters I have, to mention. The right hon. Gentleman opposite takes a great interest in manœuvres. We had a large programme of manœuvres last year. The Eastern and Southern Commands had combined manœuvres in Wiltshire; the Aldershot Command had manœuvres in

733
Buckinghamshire and the Irish Command in Leinster; the Scottish Command had mounted manœuvres in Perthshire, in which the Scottish Yeomanry regiments took part; the Northern Command had cyclist manœuvres in Yorkshire; the Eastern Command had siege manœuvres at Chatham, and the 1st Cavalry Brigade and the Household Cavalry Brigade were exercised in combined operations on the Marlborough Downs by General Sir John French. The new organisation of the expeditionary force into divisions was thoroughly tested with satisfactory results. There will be considerable manœuvres in the coming autumn. I do not wish to go into details, but certainly they will not be less than last year; in fact, I have taken a little more money under this head. We think it inadvisable to economise in this expenditure, for we think it is most fruitful when judiciously applied. The General Staff has been making its influence felt in the new formations. For instance, during the past year new units of the Royal Engineers have been raised, and, with the exception of the bridging trains and the line of communication telegraph companies, can now be mobilised to full war establishment as regards personnel. The bridging trains require more drivers, and the line of communication telegraph companies more telegraphists before they can be fully mobilised; no difficulty is anticipated in producing this personnel from Reserves when the normal has been reached. The new units are as follows—two field troops, two air line telegraph companies, two cable telegraph companies, two wireless telegraph companies, four divisional telegraph companies, three divisional telegraph companies, two bridging trains, two line of communication telegraph companies. In other words, we have had to recast the whole of the engineer organisation on account of the new organisation and improvements in science
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is the net result a reduction of the total engineering force?
MR. HALDANE: There is a small reduction, but, on the other hand, we are producing a reserve of engineers through the Special Reserve which will
734
more than compensate for that. There has hitherto been too much of getting civilian services from Regular soldiers which can be rendered more adequately by men who have been trained all their lives for these particular services; and the footing on which we are proceeding is that of getting more men—more Regulars I admit—but more men. There is another important feature of the year, and that is the work done in the Colonial Conference. The General Staff was in evidence at the Colonial Conference, and a general agreement was arrived at, the feeling being very harmonious, about the organisation of, what one may call the whole of the forces of the Empire on a general pattern. We agreed that each self-governing Colony should provide, as far as possible, for its local security; and that there should be the duty recognised of arranging for mutual assistance on definite lines in case of need; and we agreed that as far as possible the pattern of organisation should be made the same throughout the Empire, and that there should be co-operation. The way in which we thought we could best bring that about, without interference with the liberty of self-governing countries, was to make the General Staff Imperial; that was not only organising the General Staff at home but so organising it that we could send officers out to the Colonies, and could take officers from the Colonies upon our General Staff for training at home. That is being done. We have got two staff officers now, from Canada, and one from New Zealand at the Staff College; and the authorities are taking every step they can to make the forces of the Empire feel themselves a single force so far as possible. The principle is that in addition to the expeditionary Force to act at a distance in case of necessity, there should be a far-flung line of local defence extending all over the rest of the world, managed by each country within the Empire, organised as far as possible on one pattern, and by one school of thought in the shape of a General Staff. We are endeavouring not only to make the General Staff, for instance, in Canada and at home work together and exchanging officers, but we are throwing open General Staff appointments here for Colonial officers.

735
Of course, these things, can only be done on a very small scale at first; for the Colonies are only beginning to organise on the ideas that we have agreed upon, but we have made a beginning, and I am glad to say that the Selection Board have lately offered the command of an infantry brigade at Aldershot to Colonel Otter, a distinguished Canadian officer. In this way throughout the Army the spirit is now beginning to prevail of regarding the forces of the Crown and the officers of the Crown as more or less interchangeable.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is he coming?
MR. HALDANE: I do not know. The invitation has been sent to him. There is very little more that I have to trouble the House with. The whole question of reorganisation impresses itself on one's mind the more that one studies the circumstances of the Army. No Army is so difficult to manage as the British Army, because it is raised on a voluntary basis and is scattered all over the world. On the other hand, I do say that you have in the principles which I have described, which have been in large part inherited and on which we are endeavouring to carry on the work of our predecessors to its completion, a definite pattern and a definite organisation. I do feel that that has a value from every point of view, whether we take efficiency or economy into account. The great curse of our system in the past has been that its units have risen without any plan, without any definite purpose, without the question being asked of each one what is the end it is there to serve. It is better that, having adopted certain principles, we should set steadily to work and carry them out to their ultimate conclusion, looking neither to the right nor to the left, than that we should waver and hesitate. There has been much criticism about reductions; but, after all, had the country ever an organised force such as these six divisions, four cavalry brigades and artillery adjuncts? Had the country ever the prospect of such a force before it, and if such a force can be got with 21,000 fewer men and less cost, and without adding one man more than is necessary to keep at home under the influence of the Cardwell
736
system, it is a great gain to have lopped off unnecessary units and taken the opportunity of converting others, such as the old Militia, to build up, and fill up gaps, in the Regular organisation. It seems to me that there is at least enough that is simple in the plan which is now sanctioned by Parliament, and which we are working out, to justify the hope that steady working may give us an Army of which we may be able to predict with some sort of accuracy how it will function in case it is called on. We are only at the beginning of the work. A plan is made. The foundations are laid. The building is beginning to arise. That work must take years. It must be done by successive hands. I shall achieve my ambition if I leave my part in it, without having brought into the discussions of the subject that element of party bitterness which is the worst enemy of continuity of policy. I recognise what my predecessors have done; I am grateful to them; and all I ask is that the House and the country should take, in the spirit in which I have taken their work, my work hereafter. No one knows better how small it is and how true it is that we have here—"the little done, the undone vast." We have made a beginning. If we have laid down lines of steady, of continuous policy we may justly claim that good work will have been done for the British Army.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if he began at the beginning of his right hon. friend's speech, the hoped the House would not think he was going to follow him at anything like a corresponding length through the whole of it. But the words in which the right hon. Gentleman ended his speech had relation, he thought, to the argument with which he had begun it. The principle upon which he hoped to have attained a permanent basis for the British Army was the principle he had explained in his opening words, and it also formed the foundation of his speech in winding up the debate on Monday night. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Cardwell system as

737
he called it, which he explained to mean the system of linking battalions, and now, cavalry regiments also—perhaps the whole Army—in groups of two's, one at home and one abroad, was economic, and not only efficient, especially if they brought in India, and that it reduced the Army to the mathematical function of a single variant. He would be inclined to put that statement plainly to the House in something like these words. It meant that the Army was to be divided into two equal halves of which one was always changing and therefore the other must always change correspondingly. The half which was thought to be needed abroad from time to time regulated the size of the corresponding half which they had to keep at home. That was what was meant by the phrase "function of a single variant." How far that was the case the House now knew well. The expeditionary force which was explained to stand last year at 167,000 would stand he supposed in a month or two at 172,000, because the right hon. Gentleman was bringing home four battalions from the Cape of which three were placed in the expeditionary force.
MR. HALDANE: There were seventy battalions at home and I only wanted sixty-six. These four were the surplus. They do not add to the Expeditionary Force.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that at all events the size of the force which they were to mobilise under the working of what was called the Cardwell system of linking in two's, was a force now larger than 167,000 men. He was only giving an illustration of the effect of linking in pairs to show that the expeditionary force, which was arrived at by utilising for mobilisation an exactly equal number at home to that abroad, was a force which did not depend on their particular needs. It was a force which depended on an accidental number abroad. Therefore, if three out of the four battalions coming back from South Africa were to be retained as communication troops, he understood they were added to the force to be mobilised on that system. He would like to examine the statement that the system was an economic one, especially if they
738
included India. In recent debates upon finance his friends on that side who had objected to the enormous cost of our military and naval defence did not state their case at its full strength, because they did not include anything except the shown cost of the Army paid for out of the funds of the United Kingdom, and ignored certain military charges which appeared on the Civil Service Estimates. They did not include such expenditure as that upon the Canadian Army, nor the £22,000,000 which was spent on the Indian Army. It was impossible to consider his right hon. friend's proposals and principles without including India in their purview. The cost of our land forces was upon such a gigantic scale that no comparison with any foreign country presented them with any element for arriving at anything like the cost per head. The British Empire, was spending upon its land forces £53,750,000 a year, a sum which exceeded enormously the expenditure upon the Fleet. The Secretary for War had already seen the difficulty of justifying such a gigantic expenditure and such a waste of energy in the creation of his new Territorial Army, and he had admitted in the House the predominance of the Fleet in our scheme of defence. But in the last speech he made to his constituency the right hon. Gentleman threw some doubt upon that admirable doctrine, and his Under-Secretary the Earl of Portsmouth also made a speech a day or two ago in which he said—
"He sympathised with those who felt that to sink enormous sums on ships whose efficiency might be superseded at any time was a costly experiment. If the force of the Navy was to be materially lessened they were bound to increase the cost of the Army."
It was impossible for them to overlook words like those. At the Colonial Conference the Secretary for War said—
"There is the other part which exists not for local defence, but for the service of the Empire as a whole, the expeditionary force which, in a country like ours, must be naval as well as military—and I go further and say primarily naval. There is the Fleet, which in order to make the defence of the Empire what we all hope and believe it is, and are convinced that it must remain if the Empire is to hold together, must have the complete command of the sea, and must be stronger than the fleet of any other Power, or, for that matter, of any other two Powers."

739
That statement the right hon. Gentleman still adhered to, but it rendered foolish speeches like those of the Under-Secretary for War advocating a larger Army than that which we possessed at the present time. Under those circumstances were they to go on spending £53,750,000 a year on land forces? He did not think so. In regard to this military expenditure he felt ashamed of the burden they were throwing upon India, much of it for services with which the Government did not face the British taxpayer. Although they had been steadily increasing the mounted force in India the number of horses at home had been decreasing in spite of the enormous cost of the Army. On the 1st January this year the Cavalry of the Line in the United Kingdom had only 6,445 horses for 8,848 officers and men, and only 5,801 of those horses were fit for service. No less than one-third of the horse troops in the Army had at present to go on foot, and yet it was claimed that this Expeditionary Force was ready to be sent instantly across the sea. The French cavalry had their horses in time of peace, and there had been an increase in the number of artillery and cavalry horses in India. However, his right hon. friend hoped to develop a more economical system. If the country were to spend so much money on its Army, it was on the cavalry and artillery mainly that such expenditure must take place, because, whatever the infantry produced on a cheaper system might be worth, no one imagined that artillery and cavalry fit to face European troops could be produced on a Militia basis. His right hon. friend had admitted that the divisional cavalry which the Yeomanry was to produce was no longer in existence.
MR. HALDANE: The Irish Yeomanry remain.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in regard to the Territorial Artillery there was a great deal of doubt whether the change of system was to be accompanied by an improvement in the training. In the case of one of the regiments of garrison artillery which was to be transformed under this scheme the Colonel went down on Saturday to address them,
740
straight from the War Office where he got his instructions, and he said that—
"He had information as to drills Sometimes they would get three drills in one day."
Then he invited questions, and in answer to one question put to him he said—
"They would be able to put in three drills in one day."
The Adjutant, Captain Holme, R.A., also said that—
"The drivers would get a drill if they put in an appearance."
The colonel added that—
"Their presence at lectures would count also. There would be eight days camp from Sunday to Sunday. There would be ample time to get in the drills."
He did not think that that was a favourable sign, and at all the meetings which had been held there had been constant explanations in order to induce the men to come, and they had been assured that nothing would be changed and that everything would go on as before. If there was to be no improvement in training, why alter the system—why reject the service of willing men, and willing battalions, and destroy the whole civil character of the force? It had been said over and over again by War Office representatives that the new system would make no change at all. But there was the abolition of the word "Volunteer," the use of a military attestation form, and the use of the "enlist" instead of the old word "enrol," which in many parts of the country had a detrimental effect on recruiting. The basis of the whole of this costly Army system was what his right hon. friend called the Cardwell plan. What did the right hon. Gentleman say at the Colonial Conference? He recommended his scheme as vouched for by Sir George Clarke and the Esher Committee. That Committee had reported on a scheme for the reorganisation of the War Office and the Army, and that scheme was adopted by the late Government. The Secretary of State said that he was carrying it out. The Esher Committee was against the Cardwell system, and it reported in the strongest terms against the linking of battalion to battalion. Colonel Ellison, the secretary of the Committee, and Sir George Clarke, military member of the Committee, signed the Report against the scheme which the

741
right hon. Gentleman said was the foundation of his whole plan.
MR. HALDANE: The Cardwell system was only referred to in a single sentence. Colonel Ellison is one of the strongest supporters of the Cardwell system.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: You named a sailor and a soldier—Sir John Fisher and Sir George Clarke—and said that you were carrying out their views.
MR. HALDANEindicated dissent.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would read the sentence and let the House judge for itself. The report of the Esher Committee was in these words—
"We assume that the double-battalion system as part of the organisation of the infantry will be abolished as regards the training and supply of drafts for service abroad."
They went on to discuss what would happen when the "battalions are unlinked." The Esher Committee assumed as the foundation of their argument that we were to get rid of all the system which the Secretary of State for War now said was the principle of the new organisation. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Monday night had in the strongest terms put the defence of his principle of reorganisation on the ground of economy to India. He said that any other plan would be ruinous to Indian finance. That was a home opinion, but was that the opinion of the Government of India? He did not mean Lord Kitchener's opinion, for he did not think Lord Kitchener was representative of Indian opinion, he was a home soldier and not an Indian soldier. Whenever India had given evidence on the subject, that evidence had always been against this principle. The Secretary of State said that he had proved the opinion of India in his Memorandum this year. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Wantage Committee Report of 1892. Was India represented on that Committee? No, it was a War Office Committee. There had been a Commission which had considered the subject, namely, the Indian Expenditure Commission. The Indian witnesses, Lord Cromer, Sir Edwin Collen, Lord Ripon, Lord Northbrook and Lord Roberts, in giving evidence before that Commission showed that the system
742
was invented by us here, that it was not their system, and that they could do the thing much cheaper if they were allowed to do it. It had undoubtedly certain advantages, but it was a costly system. It was a compromise which was costly both to us and to India. His right hon. friend always called it the Cardwell system. He ventured to suggest that it was not the Cardwell system. Lord Cardwell never heard of the system of linked seven-year service battalions. At the present moment we had two battalions of Regulars, and a third battalion in nubibus. Lord Cardwell's idea of short service enlistment was that it should only be for a term sufficient to train the soldier for the Reserve. The system, right or wrong, was a very different system from that of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a system of real short service. Lord Card-well's words were that the term should be "as short as would make an effective soldier." Moreover Lord Cardwell contemplated compulsory service of the Militia. He had indicated this view to the Secretary of State on previous occasions in the way of interruption, but the right hon. Gentleman never took the matter up at all. The right hon. Gentleman had named the opinion of "distinguished officers" who had always held his view, but in the Memorandum of 9th April last year he used a very different phrase. He said—
"Cardwellian principles are not concerned so much with linked battalions or with particular terms of service as with the relations which should exist between the Regular and the Territorial soldier."
He denied altogether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that no distinguished soldier was against his view, and that all were on his side. The whole idea of the Reserve under the Card-well system was different from that of his right hon. friend. In a lecture delivered by General Miles at a conference held by the Chief of the General Staff on 4th January, 1906, and "sent round with the permission of the Army Council," that experienced adviser of the Secretary of State said—
"As regards the conditions of service, Lord Cardwell introduced short service, and he linked battalions in pairs; at least he did not link battalions, he affiliated them."
The Wantage Committee was not the only authority on which his right hon. friend had relied for support of his view;

743
he said that he had been supported by every soldier of note. He himself had always been inclined to think that it had been opposed by every soldier of note. He was beginning to think that the necessity for economy and the pressure of the cost of the Army might enable them to arrive in the course of three or four years at some reasonable accommodation. General Miles also said—
"All the highest officers … saw the advantages of a wider link … instead of a link of two battalions … the group system … an enormous advantage … The change is an important one, and I think it very likely it will come."
That seemed to contradict the statement made by the Secretary of State in the Memorandum of this year.
MR. HALDANE: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the lecture again, he will find that he considers affiliated groups more suitable for producing drafts.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the quotation he had read disposed of the statement of his right hon. friend that every distinguished soldier had been on his side. General Miles had made exactly the opposite statement. He would not go into the wide subject of the Territorial Army, which was dealt with in the discussions on the Supplementary Estimates. He had already said that the Territorial Army was now explained away into a series of changes which might have been made without any legislation. No reason had been given for those violent and revolutionary changes which had involved so many difficulties in regard to Vote IV. His right hon. friend had left to the last moment the announcement that any new changes which dealt with military law or explanation regarding them would appear in a new edition of the King's Regulations. Did he mean the edition of last year, or an edition yet to come? The matter might be in part discussed on the morrow; he meant as to the employment of troops in police service. This was an important question, and he had given attention to it with the advice of a skilled lawyer. It became, in his opinion, increasingly necessary that some explanation should be given as to what was really the condition at present of military law. Last year there was sent to the
744
library a document containing some explanation of the changes which had been made in military law in 1906, but for twenty-two months he had not seen another document on the subject, and it was only two years after the right hon. Gentleman had been warned of the necessity of understanding the nature of his military code, and implored to produce and explain it, that it had now been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The pressure on the subject had been increased from the fact that it now applied at any time to the infantry of the Territorial Army when called out for training and exercise. Being there, these men would not be forced to act as any civilian would, but under pressure of military law they might be called upon, if necessary, to shoot civilians.
MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that civilians could not be shot under the regulations.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that that might be the opinion of the War Office, but that was not the opinion of those to whom he would go for advice. What he appealed to his right hon. friend to do was in the name of his Territorial Army and for the purpose of obtaining for him recruits who might otherwise be frightened to join unless the matter was made clear to them. It had always been said that it was almost impossible to explain to the ordinary recruit for the Regular Army what he was liable to under military law; but it was the more necessary that the recruit for the Territorial Army should know what were his liabilities under military law. He would not further detain the House and had only risen because of the challenge of his right hon. friend. There was a settled opinion on that side of the House that certainly the right hon. Gentleman's views would continue to prevail. Looking forward to the expenditure of next year and the year after on the Navy, and to the gigantic character of the increase of the Indian military expenditure, which excluding Military Police and the Imperial Service Troops, now amounted to £21,000,000, and looking to the extent of the expenditure we threw on India which we ought to bear ourselves, economy would be demanded. Such a grouping system as that recommended by General Miles would at least be

745
cheaper and as effective as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. WYNDHAM: Those who remember the crowded benches some years back when the Motion that yon, "Mr. Speaker, do now leave the Chair," was moved, and those who remember even the numbers who attended to hear the right hon. the Secretary of State for War on a similar occasion two years ago and who look at the empty spaces this afternoon must agree in the conclusion that the whole country represented by every section of opinion acquiesce, however unwillingly, in the belief that it lies in the power of no Secretary for War by some wave of a wand to do any thing largely and seriously to diminish the cost of the Army that we need. We have often hunted the will-o'-the-wisp, but to-day the right hon. Baronet who last spoke and the hon. Member for Abercromby Division are the only two Members of the House who have the courage to get up and say that they have a plan which would give the Army what the country and the Empire require for something less than £27,500,000 sterling. We unwillingly acquiesce in the fact that the Navy costs us £33,000,000, and that we have to pay for the Army £27,500,000.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: That is without counting the Indian expenditure.
MR. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Baronet always brings this Indian money into account, but it is surely enough to discuss this question in the terms of the figures that appear in the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War declares that he adheres to—I hardly call it the Cardwell system—to the plan which people call the Cardwell system—the plan which consists in saying that the number of Regular regimental troops which we maintain abroad practically dictates the number of Regular regimental troops at home, and that that being so, it is real good economy, even if it costs more money, to organise the regimental troops at home and to utilise and train them in order to become efficient fighting units. "A little more and how much it is; and a little less and how many miles away!" It is said that it is economical to spend a rather larger sum of money in this way because you train the men and officers,
746
and have a school of preparation for war, as well as raising a reserve from which we can feed our Army abroad. The right hon. Baronet challenges all that. He may be right or he may be wrong, but I think it is somewhat academic at the present moment to put before the House any alternative scheme. After all, so far as we know, the Secretary for War enjoys the confidence of his colleagues, and they command an enormous majority in the House. If they believe, as I myself believe, that great emendations may be made in the present system, they need not abandon the hope of economy the future. The real question is whether, if we have this system, we are making the best of it. It is somewhat unreal to say, "is it the right thing; we may have another system that may cost less." But what we have to consider is whether that which is new in the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is valuable, and whether it is going to cost more or less, and by that I mean the right hon. Gentleman's Territorial Force. I think it could be shown that whether you adhere to the Cardwell system or abandon it, or whether you treat it well or ill, the Territorial Force of the right hon. Gentleman is not going to cost less but more money. The right hon. Gentleman naturally takes a somewhat sanguine view of that Force, with respect to which a good deal has been thought and said, but nothing has been achieved. The Volunteers and the Yeomanry have been renamed, but not everyone has the same lively faith as the right hon. Gentleman in the saving grace of baptismal regeneration. I think there is great virtue in personal effort, because the right hon. Gentleman has elicited from all parts of the country, and from all conditions of men, a very remarkable support and they are determined to give the right hon. Gentleman's scheme a chance. There are a very few elements left for criticisms of his Territorial Force. If you go into details on this occasion it is impossible to debate the major question of policy. When the tree has only just been planted it is perfectly impossible for anyone to see the fruit, or to judge of its value in the future. But we still doubt altogether the right hon. Gentleman's plan of converting the garrison artillery into field artillery. You cannot have field artillery trained in a fortnight; it would be a waste of time

747
and money. What is the Territorial Force to prevent? The right hon. Gentleman hinted more explicitly than I have yet heard him that he looks to this Territorial Force as a formidable force at points where invasion may be expected. Therefore, in the light of that statement, we must judge of the efficiency and cost of the force. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is to be a formidable force where invasion is expected, and that it is to cost £3,000,000. But I maintain that it will not merely cost the sum now budgetted for, but a sum three or four times as great, because the training must be three or four times longer. If you take into account the necessity of equipping by means of wagons and ranges and much more that comes into the book, that will certainly be so. But I do think it proper, in view of the debate of the day before yesterday and yesterday, to ask the House to consider the question whether or not we need an army, what we want it for, and whether it should cost as much as it will cost when the Territorial Force is made adequate for the purpose which my right hon. friend thinks it may some day have to fulfil. There is a danger, if I may say so, in devoting the whole of this afternoon's debate to a question of detail. For the whole of yesterday a considerable number of Members in this House pressed for a large reduction in the Navy, and on what was practically a two days' debate it seemed to be acknowledged that there was no prospect of a large reduction of force in the Navy. We had a very remarkable speech yesterday from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent and he, speaking for the Labour Members, practically footed the Bill for the Naval Estimates, and said they were prepared in the near future to vote for the further millions which were required. But he accompanied that, as I think notable statement, by a very extreme and extravagant form of opinion, which I think widely prevails in this country—the opinion that if you pay £33,000,000, or £37,000,000 or £38,000,000 for the Navy, then you ought to get a large reduction of five, six, seven, or eight millions from the cost of the Army, or that, as he put it, you ought not to have an Army at all. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, practical always has taken it for granted that he is safe for his twenty-seven or twenty-eight millions,
748
and thinks he will get the additional millions he requires if his Territorial Force is to be anything but a paper force; but I am not at all sure that he can convince some sections of this House that we need an Army as well as a Navy, and that we need an Army practically equipped for war. What we really want to know, or rather what we really want the people of this country to know, is that we have got an Army of about the right size and about the right establishment. If we had only to think about defending these islands we should need a considerable Army, and those who look at the Navy and say, "Why, if we spend all that on a Navy should we need an Army?" forget that you cannot conduct a naval war without an Army. You cannot protect the bases of your Navy, you cannot prevent raids, and you cannot finish a naval war without a large and rather effective Army. You cannot produce an effective Army in a few months, and therefore if you think that by paying for the Navy you absolve yourselves from paying for an Army, you will court disaster if you cut it too fine, and in the event of war, which you rather invite by cutting down your Army, you court the prolongation of war, which is almost as great a national disaster as defeat. There is a case as it stands for maintaining an Army of sufficiently large size even if we had only to defend these islands, but these islands are not the country which we have to defend; we have to defend the British Empire. The British Empire is a great deal larger than these islands. I think it embraces about 13,000,000 square miles, and a population of 400,000,000, and that is one-fifth of the surface of the earth and one-fourth of the population of the world. In addition to the defence of these islands and the Empire, supplemental to that work, you have a great deal of police work on your hands. Then let us consider the shape and the conformation of the country which we have to defend. In addition to these islands we have India. I believe that the people who live in India regard these islands as an appendage of the Indian Empire. That is not our view, but it certainly is our duty to be ready to defend India against any possible contingency. In India we have a long land frontier. It has been argued, it was argued only the day before yesterday, that because our relations with

749
Russia are—and I am glad to think they are—far better than they used to be, therefore it is possible for us to reduce the garrison of India. Does any country in Europe diminish its garrison because it is at peace with another country which has a long land frontier? If Russia remains long our friend we have precisely the same duty as a European country has in regard to another country with which its borders march. I put this in a very hesitating manner, but there are some who say that Russia is not only friendly but she is not so strong as she was. I do not believe that, but if it were true the necessity that we should uphold the garrison of India would not be less but greater. If it were true that we were the principal powerful European people in Asia the necessity for maintaining European prestige would be so great that instead of being able to reduce the garrison in India we should have to increase it. That being so, the facts are that far from being able to do without an Army, and far from being able to do with an insignificant Army—an Army for parade purposes at home—we in this country—we alone of all the nations of the world—have to have two Armies, an Army abroad as well as an Army at home, and the real question we have to consider is how we can provide economically for the double obligation in view of the great cost of the Navy, and by providing economically for the double obligation I mean the fact that we get a sound relation between the amount of money which we spend and the degree of preparation which we get for the money spent. If we could agree upon a principle—if we could, as my right hon. friend expressed it the day before yesterday, arrive at some standard for the Army comparable with the two-Power standard for the Navy—it would be very desirable. Supposing that for every £5 worth of money you spend you get £2 worth of preparation it would be better to spend £6 to get £5 worth of preparation; it would be better to have an Army which would cost one-fifth more to prevent war happening, and in the event of war happening it is an insurance against an undue prolongation of war. Therefore if we could come to some arrangement, some rule of thumb agreement as to the numbers of the Army that we need for our foreign Army and
750
the reservoir from which it is fed at home—if we could agree that that reservoir shall be properly trained in order that it may be effective, then I think we could come to some sort of an agreement on the force of the Army, as I think has been attained in the last few days in regard to the force of the Navy. Is it possible to arrive at any agreement on the numbers? I think it is. Nobody seriously suggests that you cam largely diminish the garrison in India, and I doubt if anyone seriously suggests that you can diminish the garrisons at our naval bases, or at our coaling stations. It follows that the only places you can; find for the reduction of troops are to be found in our self - governing colonies. I think it can be shown that even if the right hon. Gentleman gets back the number which he wishes to get back from South Africa—I think it is a fantastical idea that he can get all of the troops—it follows that you will always have a number of troops abroad, and if you brought these home then you would have to spend more money upon the Home Army as practically your Imperial Reserve. That is the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. At the present moment we have 130,000 men at home and 126,000 men abroad. Balance the figures if you can quite equally, and your army—your Regular Army—is not going to cost any less than it does now. It will indeed cost more. You will still need your Territorial Force. Now let me take the hypothesis of the right hon. Baronet that you can lessen the cost, partly by reducing the number of troops abroad. That is his point.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will not interrupt, but I think my right hon. friend really knows what I meant.
MR. WYNDHAM: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce the number by reducing troops abroad in our Colonies.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Everyone would bring back troops from South Africa to this country.
MR. WYNDHAM: And I know that he believes that with the Regular Army you can have a reservoir at home.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Of infantry.
MR. WYNDHAM: By having a long service army for our foreign obligations you can have three men abroad and one man at home instead of having two abroad and two at home. I believe that nobody has proposed a plan of that character which when fully examined showed any great saving of money. It has been my duty to examine several of these plans. I believe that no one has been able to show any great saving of money, if you adopt any substitute for this balance system. But supposing you can show a saving of money, though not a great saving, I am perfectly certain if you adopt such a plan you will have to spend a great deal more money on your short service Home Army than the right hon. Gentleman is going to spend on the Territorial Force, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to spend a great deal more on his Territorial Force. So that there is no El Dorado on which we can roam by changing our present system. I think some improvements are possible on it, but even if improvements are possible on what is called the Cardwell system those improvements are not going to save a great deal of money, and if they are going to save a substantial sum then the cost of your Home Army is going to be a great deal higher than anybody has contemplated. I think it is well that we should face these facts, but has anyone faced them? Has the right hon. Gentleman faced them? He keeps the Cardwell system, and if you keep that system you must try to treat it fairly; if you keep it you must keep the exact balance between infantry, seventy-four battalions abroad and seventy-four at home. The right hon. Gentleman says he can do it. How many Secretaries of State for War have I heard make that announcement? He told us last year that that was his object; we turn to the Estimates and we find that there is one more battalion abroad than at home and I shall not be surprised if next year there are two more battalions abroad than there are at home. This is always what has happened in the past. But supposing he succeeds, as nobody has who has treated the Cardwell system fairly, in keeping the balance at home and abroad, he must do something which has not been done—he must maintain the balance at home; for the great claim
752
made for the Cardwell system is that under it you can train the men at home who are to feed the battalion abroad better than under any other system. You can train them better in units than in depots, and you can also train the officers and the staff. That is true if you have enough men in the Home battalions to admit of progressive training; it ceases to be true if you have not enough. When you cut down the establishment of a Home battalion to a certain limit the number of men engaged on fatigue and other duties is so great that the battalion ceases to be a proper training school, and you lose the whole benefit of the Cardwell system.
MR. HALDANE: Does the right hon. Gentleman reproach me for having cut down those establishments? I have only reduced them because I cannot get the men. The three years system has now culminated in its full effects, but assuming that we can get the men and they are not swept away by drafts, we intend to raise the establishment of the Home battalions. It is absolutely academic.
MR. WYNDHAM: I am making no reproaches against the right hon. Gentleman; I am stating the fact. If it is the fact that the Home battalions do not contain a sufficient number of men to admit of progressive training, then it is the fact that at the present moment we are not deriving the great benefit which is claimed for the Cardwell system. If that be the fact, it is still more necessary that the Territorial Force should be properly trained, properly equipped, and properly organised. I do not indulge in speculations at any length as to what will happen if we abandon the Cardwell system, but I will tell the right hon. Baronet that if you do abandon it the necessity for training the Territorial Force, and for spending money upon it, will become very much greater. In fact, nobody, I suppose, who ever considered this question asked for less than one year's training; most people ask for two years training. The right hon. Gentleman is giving two weeks training, and says it will cost £2,000,000 a year. What an Army with two years training would cost I leave to those who are ready to perform a sum in mental arithmetic to state. We do not hold for a

753
moment that two weeks training is adequate. For artillery, it is laughable; or for Yeomanry also. The right hon. Gentleman says in regard to the Territorial Force that so far he has reduced the period of training for Yeomanry. He has spoken of the necessity of linking up the Yeomanry with the cavalry, and providing horses for both. If you discourage the Yeomanry service throughout this country you discourage horse-breeding, horse-riding, and horse-mastership; you deplete the natural nursery, so to speak, of horses, and men who under stand horses, which you had not only with the Yeomanry, but with the Cavalry also, and you do that at a time when the advent of the motor car is making the horse a rarer and rarer animal in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take full advantage of the period of law which we have deliberately given him. We told him last year that his scheme must have a fair chance. I suppose in politics two years is a somewhat generous period by which to describe a fair chance. But we shall expect something more than these speculative details and rosy hopes as to the future of the Territorial Force. We shall wish to know how he is going to deal with the Artillery. We shall deny his right to convert the Artillery into training schools until he has found a solution for that question. We shall assert that he must not cut down the Yeomanry. We shall declare that his rechristened Volunteers must come up to the standard which we had not to impose upon the old Volunteers. And we shall abide by our own opinion that he has made a mistake in reducing the Regular Army; that he has made a mistake in creating this great gap between the Territorial Force and the Regular Army; and that if your system is to be voluntary it must be various, and by making it uniform you are tending either towards inefficiency or towards compulsion.
MR. MCCRAEsaid that his right hon. friend the Secretary for War could make no complaint of the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who always intervened in Army debates with that knowlege and courtesy for which he was so distinguished. In reply to some observations of the Secretary for War, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Territorial Army was required to
754
be of such a nature as to be formidable at points where invasion was expected. It had another duty to perform which his right hon. friend had always maintained. It was a reserve to the Regular Army in case of war. That ought not to be lost sight of in considering the utility and the cost of the force. He entirely agreed with the view of the right hon. Member for Dover with regard to the Cardwell system. He did not suppose that his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean claimed that his scheme, if it were given effect to, would result in any great economy.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had now no scheme. Many years ago he had a definite scheme, but as there was not the slightest chance of its being adopted, it could not now be spoken of as his scheme. He only said this, that he preferred any of the modifications to battalions in links of two.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he did not think if his right hon. friend pressed the point that his proposal would result in any great economy. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Abercromby Division had gone so far as to tell them on Monday that unless they discarded the Cardwell system they would get no economy in the Army. That struck him as a false assumption. Before the war the cost of the Army was £7,500,000 less than it was to-day. They increased their expenditure while the Cardwell system was still in existence. They had reduced their expenditure, and they still had the Cardwell system. The question of economy did not so much depend upon the Cardwell system; it depended really on the policy, first of all, of their military advisers, and also largely upon the question of the pay of the Army, as would be seen by comparing 1898–9, when Vote 1 amounted to £5,900,000 as against £9,400,000 in the Estimates for the coming year. If they were to have a reduction of the expenditure on the Army it must be by a different policy from that of abolishing the Cardwell system, which the right hon. Member for Dover had very well shown was a most economical system. He congratulated his right hon. friend on the steady reductions he had made in the expenditure on the Army, and he thought

755
they did not quite realise what those reductions amounted to. If they took the Estimates for 1905–6, which were the last Estimates prepared by the late Administration after they had made up their minds to reduce expenditure, it would be found that they amounted to £34,148,000. If they compared that with the Estimates for the coming year, £30,569,000, they got a reduction of £3,500,000. If they went one year further back, and took the actual expenditure of 1904–5, when the expenditure on the Army amounted to £36,250,000, they had a reduction of £5,750,000. If they took the actual expenditure on the two Services for 1904–5, it amounted to £77,700,000 as against £64,500,000 for the coming year—a reduction of £13,000,000. He thought these figures ought to be kept in view when they were discussing the scheme of his right hon. friend, and the actual reduction of expenditure on armaments. The amount for which the present Administration was responsible, in a short period, was £8,750,000. But he thought that further reductions were still possible and even probable in the Army. He thought the bringing home of the Colonial garrisons afforded practical evidence of how economies could be effected. They must look to considerable reductions of the Regular Forces if they were to provide the money necessary for the complete equipment and training of the Territorial Army. It stood to reason that if they had an efficient Reserve they could do with a smaller active regular force. There was one point which he did not think his right hon. friend had made quite clear in his opening speech, and I that was as regarded the cost of the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had estimated the cost of the Territorial Army for the coming year at £2,500,000, and his estimate for the ultimate cost was £3,500,000.
MR. HALDANE: That is on a war footing. It is £3,000,000 on the full strength.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he had criticised the financial arrangements of his right hon. friend when he introduced his scheme, and soon afterwards £650,000 was added to the Estimates. He must say, looking at the matter closely, that
756
he thought the equipment and training of 315,000 men for £3,000,000 was a very conservative estimate.
MR. HALDANE: If my hon. friend will look he will see I have allowed for the horses which would not be required, and for the fact that only 80 per cent. of the men may be expected to come out to camp. That gives a big saving.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he had no doubt his right hon. friend was accurate. He thought the Estimates had been very conservative, and he held it would cost more, though the Army would be worth the money after they had considerably increased the Estimates. The Volunteers and Yeomanry together at present cost in round figures £2,000,000, and he was, sure it would cost at least £1,500,000 more to give the new force fourteen days training and all the additional equipment with regard to artillery and Army Service Corps which was absolutely necessary. The cost of the new Territorial Army worked out at £11 4s. per man as against £7 15s. 4d. per man taking the present expenditure on the Imperial Yeomanry and the Volunteers combined. That showed, of course, a considerable increase, but they ought not to grudge it. If this Army was properly organised and trained it would be worth the money. He regretted that his right hon. friend had not had a fair chance in creating this new Territorial Army. He had had every encouragement from both sides of the House, but he did not think his military advisers had dealt very fairly with him in the way they had launched the scheme, and speaking as a Volunteer officer he said it was a matter of regret that the organisation had been brought about in a way which had placed almost insuperable and unnecessary difficulties in the way of the creation of the new force. He could not understand the muddling and blundering there had been. The attestation form was a most maladroit document. There was nothing in it which was not sanctioned by last year's Act, but it was not altogether a document likely to be useful for recruiting purposes. In Scotland they had not worried very much about it. They were accustomed to the methods of the War Office, and looked beneath the surface at the actual facts, and they found there was nothing

757
in the document that any man wishing to join the Territorial Force need be at all afraid of. But why was it presented in such a form? To ask a recruit if he was married, the name of his wife, the officiating clergyman, and the number of children was rather unnecessary seeing that the average age when a Territorial soldier joined was 17. There was, of course, a basis of reason for the questions, because non-commissioned officers were to receive a separate allowance for their wives and families on going into training, but that was a matter that ought to be kept out of the attestation form altogether, and to ask the questions of the whole battalion, when, as far as peace training was concerned, the information was only required with regard to non-commissioned officers, was a little unfortunate. If the force was embodied, in the event of war every Territorial soldier would be entitled to allowance, and they would then require the particulars; but that was a matter that ought to have been arranged as pure administration, and not put in a form which terrified a good many of his fellow Volunteers in the South. A much more serious grievance, however, was the delay in issuing the conditions of service. He could see nothing to prevent the Army Council considering the necessary conditions, and having them ready for presentation to the new Territorial soldier at the beginning of the Volunteer year. It was, however, only the other day that they had had the complete form of conditions when the recruiting period was almost over. January and February were the two best recruiting months of the year. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had had unnecessary difficulties placed in his way by this delay, and he saw no reason for it. At the request of his officers he had called a meeting of his men in November to explain what the conditions were likely to be, and now that they had them they were hardly anything different from what he had explained, going merely on the Act of Parliament. Surely they had sufficient time in the War Office to have got these forms ready so that commanding officers might know what to say to their men when the recruiting season began? He was rather disappointed at the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given to a question with regard to a circular issued by the
758
Warwickshire County Association asking employers to give preference to men who were willing to join the Territorial Army. There was nothing that would be more disastrous to the success of the new force than that there should be any form of coercion of this kind. After all, those who enlisted did so voluntarily. It was a voluntary organisation, and he deprecated any such methods. He regretted also that a noble Lord in another place had accused his right hon. friend of starting a scheme and giving it to his political opponents to work. Observations of that kind were very much to be deprecated. They ought to keep party politics altogether out of this organisation. It was matter for congratulation that when the scheme was going through the House both sides while criticising it kept the party point of view out of it altogether. He hoped those who had to do with the new Territorial scheme would make a point of keeping it apart from party politics. He mentioned it because other observations similar to that to which he had referred had been made in Scotland at public meetings. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on appointing the advisory committee which would deal with questions affecting the Territorial Army. That was good, but something more was wanted, and he joined with those who had pressed repeatedly on the Secretary of State the necessity of having direct representation of the force on the Army Council. When they considered the probable cost, three and a half millions, and the number of men to be trained, it was absolutely essential that they should be directly represented. He was quite sure that if they had been, the attestation form would never have gone out in the form that it did, and the conditions of service would have been got out earlier. He hoped it was not yet too late to press on the right hon. Gentleman the absolute necessity, if the scheme was to be a success, of having on the Army Council direct representation of the new Territorial Army.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he felt that he ought to apologise for venturing to suggest that there was any other portion of the Army than the Territorial Forces, but he must ask the House to recollect, however willing they were to forget it,

759
that there was a force called the Regular Army, and it would be well that a little attention should be paid to its needs and the conditions imposed upon it. He differed absolutely from the right hon. Gentleman in his idea that the reduction of Regular trained soldiers could be adequately or reasonably made up for by the introduction of untrained men. He held that to be an extreme fallacy, and it would be found some day to be a source of extreme danger. The right hon. Gentleman took some credit for having reduced the Army by 21,000 men. Just before the battle of Waterloo the Duke of Wellington was asked what he thought were the prospects of being able to check Napoleon. The Duke, pointing to a soldier, said—
"It depends entirely upon that article yonder. Give me plenty of him and I am safe."
The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the number, and in that proportion he had reduced them from safety to want of safety. Again, acting under he did not know what mistaken influence, the right hon. Gentleman now would tell them that untrained men, who were cheap, were a good substitute for trained men, who were dear. What was going to happen when such batteries went into action if they had to rely upon untrained men behind the guns? Not being trained or disciplined they would be liable to panic and confusion; and if such a thing did arise, that might have the effect of destroying the efficiency and the power of the units in the fighting-line. The result of all this would probably be defeat. He agreed that if they were to calculate these things on the assumption that the men were never to fight, this policy of economy might be a wise one—but if they were really intended to meet an enemy in the field, then he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He congratulated the Secretary for War upon the broad way in which he was looking at this subject. There was some difficulty, he was aware, in obtaining a sufficient number of officers for the Regular Army, and he would venture to suggest that he should bring into play upon this question his knowledge of human nature, and recollect that although
760
it was of the highest importance that a large number of officers should be trained to the highest degree possible, it was not necessary that every officer should be equally well trained. It should be remembered that at the present time they were able to command the services of a certain type of officer, who, although not particularly, ambitious, was nevertheless willing to offer services which were intensely valuable during his regimental career, and that kind of officer made the best troop-leader in action. Such officers commanded in a remarkable degree the affection of the men they led into action, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of retaining that kind of man in their regiments, and not over-examine him out of the regiment, and so lose a most valuable kind of regimental service. He was not arguing that such men should go to the higher grades without giving some evidence of professional attainments, but he hoped it would not be made impossible to join as officers men who were ready and willing to give ten or twenty of the best years of their life simply for the love of the service. With regard to officers, he thought that of all the classes in the service of the Crown, none were so badly paid. When it was remembered that they look their lives in their hands, and had to spend a good deal of time in unhealthy places and got only about £100 a year, he thought it was time for the economists to pause before demanding all these services from officers. As regarded the Militia, which were now to be called the Special Reserve, he thought he was right in assuming that at the present moment they were in a state of pulp, in a soft and flabby condition. While that force remained in its present condition no-one could possibly say that the scheme was cohesive, or capable of being put into force. He thoroughly agreed with other speakers who had stated that it was the bounden duty of them all, however much they might differ in detail, or in their estimates of the future, loyally and heartily to support the scheme which had been adopted by the House of Commons. The Secretary for War had invited the country to support his Territorial Army Scheme on the ground that it would effectively improve

761
the military strength of this country, and safeguard all those points which, from a military point of view, might be considered in danger. There was one point, however, which was in reality the whole question—and it was whether it was proposed to train the Territorial Army to be efficient and reliable. He would like to know if any body of men, however intellectual individually, and however capable, could be made efficient and reliable on the system laid down for the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman himself had not had personal experience of military affairs, but he himself had, although it was a long time ago. He did not, however, think that he was far from right when he said that no soldier of any experience would for a moment admit that a Territorial Force, trained and drilled on the system laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, could be fairly called either reliable or effective. It was a matter of absolute impossibility that such a force could be effective. He agreed that under the present system less drill was required than used to be thought necessary, and possibly the improved individual intelligence in the type of man they hoped to get by recruiting would compensate for the old soldier upon whom they used to set so much store. Nevertheless, he ventured to say that a possible maximum of fourteen days, which was more likely to be nearer eight days on the average, was not an effective or reliable training for a soldier; and men so trained ought not to be put before the country as constituting a reliable force. The leading soldiers of every foreign country would scorn the idea that such troops would be considered reliable. It was not until they had added to those men that discipline and self-reliance which an adequate training alone could give that they would get a soldier who would be taken seriously by those whom he would have to meet in the field. He knew it was extremely difficult to get men of that type from their occupations into camp for any long period of time, in order to subject them to military discipline. He could, however, see one direction in which much could be done to provide, at all events, self-reliance under the present system. Just in proportion as every man in the Territorial Force became a master of the
762
weapon he had in hand, they would make him more of an effective soldier. If it was impossible for them to increase the actual time of training, at least they should insist upon a much higher average of individual shooting capacity and power with the rifle, because if men went into action conscious of their ability with the rifle, that feeling in itself gave the self-reliance and steadiness which was after all what they wanted to get out of training and discipline. He trusted that the efforts of those who had to conduct the new Territorial Army would largely be thrown into elaborating the system of rifle shooting, which would make each man a first-rate rifle shot, if they were unable to undertake longer camp training. The hon. Member opposite had talked about the Territorial Force being able to reinforce the Regular Army, but he appeared to forget that not one member of that force undertook to go abroad. The very first thing they would have to consider in the event of an expeditionary force leaving this country was, how were they going to reinforce it and keep it up to strength, after some great disaster?
MR. MCCRAE: They can always volunteer.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Yes, but they could not reckon upon them. He wished to judge the Territorial Force generously, and at its full value, and he fully recognised that it contained probably the best fighting material in the world. There was no better st ff than that which, in the past, had composed their Auxiliary Forces, and which would in the future compose the Territorial Force. But because it was so excellent, they should not run away with the idea that it was efficient for fighting purposes unless it was properly trained. Therefore it was not wise for them to live in a fool's paradise, and bring upon themselves the possibility of disaster through not recognising the facts and the realities of the situation. He believed that, in fairness to the force and to the country, the right hon. Gentleman should state what were its possibilities and impossibilities, its limitations and powers of expansion. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say to the

763
country boldly and straightforwardly: "Under this scheme we believe we provide an adequate expeditionary Force; under this scheme we believe we supply sufficient reinforcements for India; under this scheme we believe we supply through the Special Reserve an arrangement under which we can reinforce the Expeditionary Force in the field; and under this scheme we also create the very best Territorial Army that the limitations which the country puts upon us enables us to create." If in saying that the right hon. Gentleman would also say honestly fairly and squarely that within the limitations upon which the War Office had to work this Territorial Army could not be reliable or effective for the purpose of meeting at short notice anything like a well-drilled and well-disciplined Army, then he would have told in a candid and fair way the realities of the situation, and he would be relieved of the accusation to which he was at present open of representing that in the Territorial Force the country had something superior to what it really had. More than that, he would stimulate the force to make itself really efficient and reliable by taking all the advantage it could of its opportunities of training, and, above all things, of perfecting itself to the highest possible degree in rifle-shooting, which would very largely make it an effective and reliable force. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would be doing that which would be patriotic and fair to the country, and in the best interest of the Army.
MR. SEDDONsaid he did not think that anyone who listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for War would charge him with lack of lucidity. So far as the reductions were concerned he was afraid they were more illusory than permanent. He desired to call attention to the personnel of the Army and also to refer to the Territorial Force. The Secretary for War had said they were attempting to provide a better training for officers between twenty-one and thirty-five years of age. He thought there was to-day a higher appreciation among officers of their duties than in the past. When he visited Aldershot last year, he met several officers who looked
764
on their duties very seriously. But he had an uneasy suspicion that all officers were not like minded. The evidence in the case of Lieutenant Wood had left a suspicion in his mind that there were some officers in the Army who still looked more to pleasure than duty. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised in trying to somewhat further democratise the higher ranks of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the class of recruits was improving. Speaking from the working-class point of view, he thought there was a new conception of the Army. It was not now regarded as the dumping ground of wastrels. Many young men went into the Army as an occupation and pursuit. He was one of those who objected wholly to the three years system. Under that system the soldier never became inured to Army conditions. When he left the Army he was unfit for civil life. There ought to be something further done to induce the intelligent members of the democracy to rise to the higher ranks as officers. He was glad to hear that wastage was decreasing under present conditions, and that temperance was on the increase in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to the decrease of venereal diseases in the Army, but unless he was wrongly informed—and he had private information which he would be glad to give to the right hon. Gentleman—that was not so in fact, and he thought it would be a wise thing if the medical inspection of soldiers was much more minute than at present. As regarded the Territorial Army, he was afraid it was the parent of the child so far as the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman were concerned. The lords-lieutenant had already given evidence that this child was going to die by neglect. Many volunteers who had served for long years objected to the provisions laid down under this new scheme up to the present time. Personally, he was all in favour of the Territorial Force, and he believed the day had not yet come when they could beat their swords into plough shares and their spears into pruning hooks. They must make provision for every contingency, but the conditions laid down under this new scheme were somewhat harsh on those called on to serve. Lancashire was reckoned a leader in commerce

765
and patriotism, and their county instinct was very strong, and if anything were done to destroy the county character of the Territorial Army, much more harm would be done than the right hon. Gentleman thought. If the Territorial Army failed they would have to look forward to conscription, and he objected to conscription on all grounds. There was much in the Swiss, system which he appreciated, and if the economic conditions there and here were more similar, he would be still more a supporter of that system. But if the Territorial scheme broke down they would be in danger of being confronted with conscription pure and simple. He believed, however, that the patriotism of the democracy of this country was quite enough, to meet all requirements, if only a clear statement were made, fairly and squarely. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to revise the instructions to commanding officers and to see that they were made as clear as possible. There would then be a prospect of his anticipation of an effective Territorial Force being realised.
MR. BYLESsaid that in his opinion this had been a discouraging debate, for no one had said a word about economy or retrenchment. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, the hon. Member for Edinburgh.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, like others who had addressed the House, had spoken from the military point of view. He supposed that none of them were surprised at demands from the Tory benches whenever there was any spending to do on military and naval affairs, but the observations that fell from the Minister of War were somewhat disturbing. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was not responsible for the size of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister and a Member of the Cabinet, had, he thought, his own individual responsibility for the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the enormous Expeditionary Force was truly economic. The right hon. Baronet had replied to that statement. To be asked in the House for an expeditionary force of such magnitude was certainly depressing to the friends of peace. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced the view that
766
the Navy was of no use without the Army. He had thought that the advocates of the Blue-water school, as it was celled, were accustomed to say that the more efficient the Navy was the more they would be able to save on the Army. The right hon. Member for Dover had stated that we wanted not only one Army but two Armies. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] He dared say that the right hon. Gentleman would like three or four, but he never could maintain his claim that the Army was the greatest insurance against war. He combated that idea and held that with a large force in which the interests of a great number of men and officers were involved, they were far more likely to go to war than if the advice he would give to the House were followed. He approached the question from a totally different point of view from that expressed that day. He thought that these large Votes for naval and military expenditure were contrary to Liberal traditions and Liberal principles, and were not desired by the nation. Certainly they were contrary to the expressions which were made by hon. Members before the last general election, and by Members of the present Government profusely when they condemned the extravagant expenditure, naval and military, of their predecessors. It was to change all that that they came into power. Their supporters echoed their professions—he confessed that he did at any rate—and thereby they won their seats.
SIR F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!
MR. BYLESsaid that that was assented to by the hon. Baronet, and therefore they had a right to suppose that those who sent them there with a big majority took the view to some extent which he was expressing. He would quote a sentence from a speech made in the House by the Prime Minister, not in view of the general election, but on 9th March, 1904, on a precisely similar occasion to the present. The Prime Minister then said—
"The scale of military expenditure cannot be maintained. That is what the House of Commons has in its mind and what it must

767
impress upon any government. The great expenditure which has been so rapidly incurred can only be reduced by decreasing the number of men in the Army."
He thought that that was a pretty high authority, and what the right hon. Gentleman said then, he thought now. Compared with ten years ago we were spending on the Army half as much again. Granting the necessity of a big Navy we ought surely to be able to save something on the Army. He regarded a standing Army always as a menace to the liberties of the people. The use of troops in civil disturbances had been referred to, and that was a point of view he specially commenced to his Labour friends. They believed, as lie did, that the greater the Army the greater the menace. It might be asked why he, a mere civilian, and not a military expert, advanced the view that the Army was too big. Well, he was not able to judge for himself, but he would quote from a speech made by Mr. Gibson Bowles, whose name he was sure would be received with mixed feelings on the benches opposite. But he did not think that anybody would deny that Mr. Gibson Bowles was an authority on naval matters and on matters of public finance. That Gentleman said—
"Without in the least impairing efficiency very great reductions might be made. I have conic to the conclusion after the expert advice I have taken that on the Navy £8,000,000 might be saved, and on the Army £15,000,000.
SIR F. BANBURY: When was that?
MR. BYLES: A few months ago, and he would give the right hon. Baronet the reference with pleasure. He would quote a still higher authority than Mr. Gibson Bowles—the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The speech was also made in a debate in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that—
"Instead of an Expeditionary Force of 120,000—not 160,000 as was at present proposed—there was a prima facie case to show that this country would be better off with a small force of 80,000 if not 40,000 men."
He did not know if anybody had on Monday ventured on such a small number as 40,000 men for our expeditionary force. The speech was made on a
768
Motion moved in 1903 to reduce the Army by 27,000 men and the Motion came from a Member of the Party opposite, who took with him thirty Unionists into the Lobby in support of it, and obtained a minority vote for it of 154.
SIR F. BANBURY: Most of these Unionists have become Radicals since then.
MR. BYLESsaid that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs voted for that reduction, but now instead of talking of a reduction of 27,000 men, the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced in a proposal to put on 40,000 men!. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciled the vote he gave then with the demand which he now allowed the Secretary of State for War to make on the House. He was glad to believe—and he gave the right hon. Gentleman every credit for it—that in his high position he was exercising and practising the arts of a wise and peaceful foreign policy and promoting to the best of his great powers friendly relations with the nations of the world. But he confessed that it was impossible for him to reconcile the demand now made upon the House with a speech such as he had quoted and a vote such as he had mentioned. There was another point he wished to urge. He believed that this country would never be truly great as long as its greatness rested on these demonstrations of brute force; and he did not believe that the nation was with the House in this enormous expenditure upon the Army and the Navy. Let him put this case to hon. Members. Supposing he was in a position to offer to his constituents to take off £5,000,000 from the Army expenditure and £5,000,000 from the Navy expenditure and to leave that money in their pockets to fructify, or to spend as they liked.
SIR F. BANBURY: It would not fructify.
MR. BYLES: Let us see how. It would enable them to increase the consumption of commodities, thereby increasing the production of commodities and thereby increasing the employment of men; and thereby to raise wages; and

769
thereby to swallow up the unemployed and thereby to enable themselves to improve their own house accommodation. What would they say? Would they say: "No, no; don't leave this money in our pockets; let us remain unemployed; let us go on living in squalid slums, We eat meagre food and wear poor clothing. We have no old-age pensions and can scarcely keep body and soul together, but never mind, go on spending our taxes on buying costly ships, on feeding and clothing a quarter of a million soldiers and sailors." He did not believe that they would say that while they were in the depths of poverty and on the verge of starvation. If he was correct in that, what right had Parliament to spend the money it took from them in the shape of taxes in such directions? He put it to every hon. Member present whether it was not wrong to spend their money so taken from the poor people in taxes for purposes which were against their wishes. He knew in his own constituency many men, who had as much as they could do to keep themselves, who at the last General Election asked for old-age pensions, and they had been given Dreadnoughts; who asked for bread, and had been given a stone.
MR. REESasked why the hon. Gentleman who was an extremely militant member of the extreme peace party was not supported by more than seventy members, when he and his friends pressed the Government for further reductions in military and naval expenditure on Monday night before they knew what the Government proposals were I How, if he represented the party, did he make so poor a show in the lobby? The answer was that there was no such waste as that perpetrated by spasmodic reductions, and subsequent and hasty increases. He, however, wished to refer to the Indian question which had been raised by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who, anticipating that he was going to catch him out in regard to one of his facts had taken the precaution to be absent. The right hon. Baronet quoted General Sir Edward Collen, as against the Cardwell linked battalion system, and as having quarrelled with Lord Kitchener in regard to this question. The right hon. Baronet had certainly made a mistake there for General Collen had never sat
770
with Lord Kitchener; and he had also perhaps attributed to General Collen, whose colleague he was for years, views which that distinguished soldier did not hold. He was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet would hardly contend that all authorities connected with India condemned the Cardwell system. What they did know about the Cardwell system was that for many years it had supplied India with the drafts she wanted. It had given her the best men, indeed the flower of the British Army. He did not say that it was not expensive, but nobody had provided a better system although in many respects it was no doubt open to criticism. If they wanted to see a British regiment in its full strength and efficiency they must go to India, because there they had the best men, and if a man failed in his health and strength he was sent back to England and a sound man went out to replace him. When hon. Members criticised this system they should in his judgment have something to put in its place, but he had never heard anything suggested, not even by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, or by the Member for the Abercromby division of Liverpool who faithfully represented the right hon. Baronet's views, and often went one better. In their agreement they were like twin stars one of which differed from the other in glory. The right hon. Baronet said of this system that under it we not only did not get what we wanted here, but what we had was determined by the needs elsewhere. It was quite true that what we had here was determined by the needs elsewhere, but that must be so in any case, for the needs of India were our needs, and it was not possible to separate India from England, so far as problems of defence were concerned. India paid one quarter of the whole expenditure for the defence of the Empire, and in spite of what the hon. Gentleman who spoke on his right hand said, he thought the Cardwell system was mutually beneficial to this country and India, more so perhaps to India because it gave her the flower of the British Army and she got the best of everything. But having got the best, India paid the best price for getting it, while any failure-or loss fell upon Great Britain. His right hon. friend was mistaken in supposing that General Collen or Lord Kitchener had any dispute on this matter. The

771
attitude of Lord Kitchener had been discounted, on the ground that he was not an Indian soldier, and did not represent Indian ideas? But still he was Commander-in-Chief, and it would be dangerous to put aside his opinion, and while he was there they must assume that the noble Lord represented the views of the Indian Army. There was no proof that a locally raised long service Army was now possible or that its cost would not be prohibitive. It had been urged that the Indian Army could be reduced on account of the Anglo-Russian Convention, but that was altogether a fallacious argument. The numbers of that Army in India were fixed without any reference to the Russian menace. They were fixed after the Mutiny, though they had never been maintained at their proper strength; still they were fixed in order to secure the safety of our countrymen and countrywomen in India, and to safeguard the hundreds of millions which we had invested in that country and to preserve our position as the Imperial power. So far from this being a large provision it was a small provision, and the native Army which was originally in the proportion of five to one European, had since been reduced to three to one European. The proportion of soldiers to the population was very small, he thought ·07 of the population as against ·3 in Britain, and nobody who had any knowledge of the conditions of the case could argue that it would be safe to make any reduction in the Indian Army because of the Anglo-Russian Convention. It was altogether out of the question, and he was sure that no such proposal would be made by anybody who had been at the pains to study the matter. It was said that Russia was weaker than she was before. That might be so in one sense, but in another sense her defeat in the Far East made her stronger in the Middle East by enabling her to concentrate her energies and arms in that direction, and right through her troublous times she never relaxed her grip on Persia or Central Asia, but everything was in those quarters maintained up to concert pitch during the struggle. Besides, they all knew now, since the war in Manchuria, that Russia could place a large Army in the field by means of one single line of rail. Russia, if she ever was a menace, was
772
still a menace and the Indian Army was still a very small provision for our Indian Empire. He hoped he would not hear anyone who had an elementary knowledge of the case contend that on account of the Anglo-Russian Convention or on any other account the British troops in India should be reduced in numbers, nor was so mad a measure rendered less insane by being proposed at a time, when difficulties we had to a large extent prepared for ourselves had come to a head, and sedition hatched in Bengal and encouraged in England, was scotched but not killed. He would not say more upon that subject, but there was one other matter mentioned in which he was much interested, and that was the examination of officers in languages. He could not in passing, help referring to what the hon. Member in front of him had said about a certain case which was extremely relevant to what the right hon. Member for Shropshire had stated about the difficulty of getting officers for the Army. If there was one thing more than another that increased that difficulty, it was that the officers were afraid, not of their superiors, not of the enemy and not of their work, but of the inquisition they were subjected to in case of a little horse play or high spirits in the regiment being displayed, and a ragging scandal, as it were called, being brought against the corps. They were then brought before Parliament and held up in the Press as malefactors, and this sort of irregular and sentimental inquisition made the Army a far less popular place for the men we wanted to get into it than it should be. But returning to the point about the examination of officers in languages, he was extremely glad to hear the Secretary for War say that arrangements had been made by the Civil Service Commissioners for conducting their examinations in the country where the language in which the officer was to be examined was spoken. If that system could be extended and developed he was sure that it would have a good effect. He knew that the present Government was anxious to provide facilities for the study of Oriental languages and had appointed a Treasure Committee to consider this very important subject before which he had the honour recently of giving evidence. He had to remark that after very con-

773
siderable experience in this matter he believed that the officers in our Army were improving every day in this respect. In India our officers were devoted to their profession, and took the greatest pains to learn the language s of the country. He believed that the British officer was a man who took the greatest pains to master the details of his profession, and he had found him a better linguist as a rule than civilians who had to qualify themselves in this respect. He did not know whether he would be rightly making use of the opportunity he now had of addressing the House if he went away from these general questions. He was not going to bring up the question of Welsh patriotism in regard to the Territorial Force which he had no doubt would be maintained upon the lines already settled, so far as Wales was concerned, but he wanted the Secretary of State to consider the question of separation allowances. In his county it was regarded as a grievance that privates should not have separation allowances as well as the non-commissioned officers. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether regimental sergeant-majors and bandmasters should not be given the rank of warrant officers, as in the case of similar officers in the regular Army. There was also another matter in regard to which there was a good deal of feeling in Montgomeryshire, which county had always done its best to provide men for the Army. If the right hon. Gentleman would give such consideration as he could to these little matters to which he was drawing attention, it would tend to make the Territorial Army far more likely to be a success in the county than it otherwise would be. What they wanted was to keep the Cardiganshire Company in Montgomeryshire. There was some idea of turning it into a University company, but the members of it were all men belonging to their county or coming from close by and if the company were taken away it would diminish the interest which existed in the scheme in Montgomeryshire. He ventured to mention these matters as he had an opportunity of addressing the House, but he really got up with a view of speaking of the Cardwell system, which he thought was of great benefit to the Indian Army
774
and of the suggested reduction of the Indian Army in view of the Anglo-Russian Convention, which he thought was out of the question, and would find no support in any responsible quarter.
MR. LAMBTONsaid that the statement made by the Secretary for War in regard to short service in the Army raised a question of serious importance. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a scheme which he (Mr. Lambton) regarded as unsatisfactory and which, before it was carried out, required further consideration on the part of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had also talked very much about the highly-trained minds of officers, but if he put before the young men of this country who were desirous of entering the Army the proposition that their minds must be so exceedingly highly trained he would place one more obstacle in the way of obtaining those officers which he required.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

THE PRICE OF BREAD.
SIR JOSEPH LEESE, in moving "That this House is of opinion that the recent high price of bread in this country is due to natural causes alone, and that any import duty on wheat would tend to raise the price still higher and aggravate the suffering caused by dear bread," said that, as some of his right hon. and hon. friends might recollect, by the fortune of the ballot, he had charge of a very similar Motion in the last session of the last Parliament, and they were able to register a vote on the records of the House of Commons nem. con. It might be said to him, "Why bring forward this Motion again," and that he was showing a great want of originality in raising the question of taxes on bread. Let him try to justify his action in bringing it forward. In the House of Commons of late there had been little or no discussion on the fiscal question, at any rate very little as compared with the vigorous campaign which was being carried on in the country by the Tariff Reform

775
League. The free traders had been comparatively silent, not so much for want of zeal and full faith in free trade as from lack of opportunity and lack of occasion. Moreover, they found themselves in that position whilst a great war was going on outside in which some Members of that House were advancing opinions which they did not attempt to repeat or re-echo within the walls of that Chamber. His Motion would afford an opportunity to those Gentlemen to repeat with emphasis their outside opinions; and would give to the Liberal Party an opportunity to express its undying allegiance to the principles of free trade and its consequent cheap bread. Might he further preface his justification by a statement of what was now a simple historical fact? A cardinal principle of the Tariff Reform League was the taxation of wheat. Further, the Tariff Reform League had captured the Tory Party, its organisation, its money, its social and political influence, and last, but by no means least, its Leader. It had also captured the Chief Tory Whip, late Patronage Secretary to the Conservative Government. Under these circumstances the great political aspirations of the Tariff Reform League were now the political aspirations of the Tory Party. Therefore, the Tory Party would tax the people's food if it got the chance. If that was the situation in which Liberals and free traders found themselves, was there not full justification for his Motion? He had said that the Tariff Reform League had captured the Tory Party—he had almost said lock, stock, and barrel, but perhaps not quite. Whilst the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Avebury, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Lord Hugh Cecil, and many others stood outside this food-taxing party, it could not be said to have captured the highest intelligence amongst the Unionists. Again, did not some confusion arise when the persistent question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the captured Leader, as to whether he would agree to this tax on food, remained unanswered? This uncertainty on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Prime Minister, as to whether he would put a tax on food, must be cleared up. His Motion was justified if only because he was giving an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman of
776
saying whether he would put a tax on food and how much that tax was to be. His opinion, clearly expressed, was a matter of deep public concern. If the right hon. Gentleman said that a tax on food was unnecessary to carry out the policy and the important requirements of the Tariff Reform League, would he tell them how the policy of the League, which was the policy of the Tory Party, was to be carried out without such a tax? However dangerous the principles of the Tariff Reform League might appear to Liberals, and to the best intelligence of the Unionist Party, it was impossible to be blind to its activity. Its methods, by reason of the amalgamation alone, had naturally become the methods of the Tory Party. One of the most trusted Members of the Conservative Party and of the Tariff Reform League was his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield. His efforts for the propaganda of Tariff Reform League principles were therefore efforts for the propaganda of Tory principles. He did not know, but he had been given to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been given charge of certain vans and gramophones. At any rate, he was Chairman of the Literature Committee of the National Union of Conservative Associations. He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman had anything to do with the vans and gramophones, or whether it was his special duty to fill the vans with scrupulously truthful statements, to tune the gramophones to the same high key, and see that, so laden those vans were turned loose upon an innocent and unsuspecting public. But whether or not he was responsible for the vans and gramophones, he certainly was for the National Union leaflets. Almost without looking at them one could guess what the burden of their song was likely to be. He found in the Order Book of the House of Commons a Notice down in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield as follows—
"Cost of living. To call attention to the increased cost of living in Great Britain and Ireland during the administration of the present Government, and particularly to the increased cost of bread, tea, bacon, butter, jam, cheese, cocoa, rice and coal, and the effect of such increase upon the welfare of the masses of the people in the augmentation of pauperism and suffering, and to move a Resolution."

777
There was no doubt what the meaning of that was. It was that the Liberal Government was responsible for the recent high price of bread. But the Liberal Party stood for free trade just as the Tory Party stood for protection. Therefore, free trade must be found responsible for the recent high price of bread. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He was glad he got so much acquiescence from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they knew and admired and made allowances for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield and his political eccentricities, and he did not think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman stood alone that the Liberal Party, the Liberal Government, and free traders would be very much perturbed. But he did not stand alone. Here was a choice quotation from his right hon. friend sitting opposite to him, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was from a speech made in Birmingham in his own constituency on the 15th November, reported in the Birmingham Post on the 16th of November. This was what the right hon. Gentleman said—
"Now I see my friend, Sir Alexander Acland-Hood. I make him a suggestion. Let him go to the Secretary of the Liberal Publication Department, and let him make an offer for their stock of big and little loaf cartoons. He will have to make a little alteration in the text. The big loaf will represent the taxed loaf of the Unionist Government, and the little loaf will symbolise, more accurately than it has symbolised anything hitherto, what a Radical Government in two short years has made it. Yes, gentlemen, your food is costing you more, and it is not an accident."
The meaning of that was clear. It was that the Liberal Government in two years had done this mischief, and he could well understand that people would assume that it also meant that they were to turn the Liberal Government out and take, instead, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends, who proposed to cheapen the loaf and make it bigger by putting an import duty on wheat. But again, these two champions did not stand alone. He did not say how they might treat the situation if they did—he assumed that it would be with great respect. The hon. Member for Dulwich, who in this matter was supposed to carry great guns, which he did, had also made a speech, at Aberdeen, a short time ago, and this was what the London Times reported him to have said—
"He maintained that the Liberal Party were responsible for some part of the rise in the
778
price of bread, because it was the result of a shortage of supply which would have been obviated had this country years ago given a preference to the wheat-growing portions of the Empire. The preference would have stimulated and increased the supply and widened the area from which the supply came."
The hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Party were responsible for some part of the rise in the price of bread. He would like to know how much blame was to be attributed to the Liberal Party and who was to bear the other portion, of the blame because this Government did not give preference to the wheat-growing portions of the Empire years ago. Did he mean five, ten, or twenty years? If he meant ten, up to 1906, the ten years were passed entirely in the hands of the Party opposite. If he meant twenty years, with the exception of 1892 to 1895 a Conservative Government was entirely in power. Did he mean a generation? If so, what had he got to say for the high priest of tariff reform who in those days was as keen on free trade as any of them? Was he to be blamed because he chose to live in the darkness of free trade rather than in the light of protection? That statement by the hon. Member for Dulwich was hardly a fair statement, and was intended to suggest something which he did not say straightforwardly. He took one more example. This time it was a leaflet issued by the authority of the chairman of the literature committee of the National Union of Conservative Associations. He believed it was also a poster. It represented the Prime Minister in the dowdy garment of a greengrocer about to go out to wait. In his hand he held a platter on which was a loaf and on the loaf was written "a 4½d. loaf for 6d.," and above were the words "Radicalism means dearer living," and under the drawing which at best was a vulgar and malicious libel about which he did not think his right hon. friend would trouble himself very much, was printed the name of the Prime Minister and then, all honour to the poetic genius of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who issued it, there were these classic lines—
"When this you see,
Remember me."
This meant beyond all doubt that there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Conservative Party to try to fix on the Liberal Government the responsibility for the recent high price of bread, by any

779
means legitimate or otherwise. He had in his hand a charming election address with the name "E. A. Goulding" in a prominent place, and in it he found the words "Radical Government" in large red letters, and there followed this—
"The country has had two years experience of the rule of a Radical Government, with this result, food, fuel and clothing are dearer to-day."
Having sufficiently illustrated the issue which his Resolution raised he had now to fulfil the more serious part of his obligation which was to prove, as he hoped he might be able to do, that the recent high price of bread was due to natural causes alone, and if the House would bear with him he would shortly point them out. The advance in the price of wheat began to make itself felt last June when the wet and unfavourable weather in Europe and the late spring in America and Canada indicated that the world's crops of 1907–8 would be seriously deficient. The anticipations of a short crop of wheat throughout the world, which began to affect the price of wheat in June, 1907, were unfortunately realised. The crops of Germany, Roumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria in 1907 were the smallest for many years. The Russian crop was also a comparatively small one, and unfortunately the crops of America and Canada were also seriously deficient. To summarise, the world's production in 1906 was 441,000,000 quarters, and in 1907 it was 394,000,000 quarters, showing a falling off of 47,000,000 quarters, or nearly one and a half times the amount of Great Britain's annual consumption. Roughly speaking, we imported one half of all the wheat we required from foreign countries and one fourth we grew ourselves, while the remaining fourth came from our Colonies. Thus, if a 2s. import duty were put on for the benefit of our Colonies we should be taxing the British consumer and benefit those who only sent us one fourth of all we required. It was inconceivable that if they taxed a half of the whole supply so as to give a preference to the Colonies and protection to our own growers that they would not raise the cost all round. But not only had the world's production fallen off, but in the present year the crops had been especially bad in nearly every one of our wheat producing Colonies. The Canadian crop was a virtual failure because of the lateness and
780
coldness of the spring, but on the other hand the Australian and Indian crops, which at one time promised so well had failed for lack of rain, so that in Canada there was too little sunshine, and in Australia and India too much. The crop of wheat in Canada in the past year was only 10,500,000 quarters, in comparison with 15,400,000 quarters in the previous year. Of this crop, about 30 per cent. was not millable, so the net crop available for food supply was only about 7,350,000 quarters. Of this, 6,000,000 quarters were required for the home consumption of Canada. So Canada this year had only 1,350,000 quarters, available for export. There were, however, about 1,500,000 quarters of old wheat unsold, and so the total amount of wheat which Canada had for shipment was only about 2,850,000 quarters. In 1907, Canada's shipment of wheat and flour amounted to 6,500,000 quarters. Again, the crop of Australasia was deficient in consequence of drought. The estimated yield was only 6,000,000 quarters in comparison with 10,000,000 quarters last year, and Australasia would apparently require the greater portion, if not the whole, of this 6,000,000 quarters for her own consumption, whereas last year, her shipments of wheat and flour amounted to 4,500,000 quarters. In October last it became apparent that the Indian harvest would be short, and this fact was largely responsible for the advance in wheat which took place then. Fortunately, good rains had since fallen, and the outlook was much more promising than it was in November and December. Nevertheless, the absence of rain in India last autumn prevented the farmers of India, from getting seed into the ground, and the average devoted to wheat this year showed a decrease of no less than 10,000,000 acres, or 33 per cent. of the usual quantity. Given favourable conditions of harvest, the Indian wheat crop of the current year would probably not exceed about 25,000,000 quarters in comparison with 39,000,000 quarters last year, and after satisfying her own requirements apparently India would have only about 5½ million quarters of wheat for export, and most of that was of last year's crop. Thus the combined crops of India Australasia, and Canada in the present crop season of 1907–8 would probably be about 41,000,000 quarters in comparison with 64,000,0000 quarters last year.

781
Under these circumstances could there be any doubt what the real cause of the rise in prices was? The price of bread in all probability would have been higher still, but for one fortunate circumstance and that was that in Argentina there had been a good crop. This year, it was estimated to reach 24,000,000 quarters in comparison with 19,000,000 quarters last year, and the amount of wheat which Argentina would be able to ship was 17,000,000 quarters in comparison with about 13,000,000 quarters last year. The policy of Great Britain in keeping her markets open freely to the produce of all countries had undoubtedly encouraged Argentina and other countries to produce wheat, and had consequently been the direct means of providing British consumers with bread at a reasonable price even in years in which the harvests had failed throughout the British Empire and the world. He firmly believed that, but for these open ports, this country would have been exposed to the same famine conditions from time to time as it was prior to the introduction of the "open door" policy in the hungry days of the forties. It seemed almost unnecessary to prove that if a great raw material went up in price the manufactured article would of course become dearer. But it was a very consistent rule that bad crops forced wheat up in price and that high priced wheat was followed by high priced bread. Thus one had only to find a year of high average price for wheat to be quite certain that bad crops preceded it and that dear bread came after. Let him give some illustrations. In 1891 the average price of wheat in the United Kingdom was 37s.—a very high price for wheat. The mean price for household bread, the 4lb. loaf, in London was 6·21d.—also a very high price. In 1893 the price of wheat fell to 30s. 3d., and bread to 5¾d. Why was wheat so dear in 1891 and 1892? Because in 1890 the world produced 20,000,000 quarters too little for its wants. In 1891 there was a further deficiency of 8,000,000 quarters. But in 1893 the world began to produce more than it required by 11,000,000 quarters, and the price went down to 30s. and was followed by the price of bread to 5¾d. He took the year 1897. In that year the Indian, Australian and Canadian crops and in fact the crops all over the world were very bad.
782
From 1896 to 1906 the Conservative Government was in power; but no sane Liberal ever thought of charging them with responsibility for the dear bread of those years. On 1st February last, the price of the 4lb. household loaf was 5½d., an increase of from a half-penny to a penny over its price on the same day last year. This was a case of history repeating itself. He had shown how they had bad weather, bad crops, dear wheat, and dear bread in 1907, and the Liberal Government had no more to do with that rise in price than the man in the moon. Where would they be if on the top of this high price of bread they had an import duty of 2s. or more? They were liable to these recurring bad seasons—they would always come. Surely no sane economists would deny now that an import duty would add to price, if not always to the full extent, yet nearly always to a very large degree. France and Germany offered very conclusive illustrations of this. According to an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade the other day the average price of wheat in Great Britain in 1907 was 30s. 7d. In France it was 40s. 7d., and in Germany 43s. But the duty on wheat in France was 12s., and in Germany also 12s. In Germany the price, therefore, was the world's price, namely the English market price free from all duties, plus rather more than the duty. In France where the duty was 12s. the difference between the world's price and the average price was only 10s. This was accounted for by the abnormally good crop of wheat in France in 1907, whereby she found herself in possession of large stocks, and could now export wheat if she so desired, and if prices in other countries were sufficiently attractive. But there was an even better illustration. As they all knew Hamburg was a free city. He was told on most excellent authority that allowing for differences in quality, cost of transit inland, and other technical points, wheat in Berlin was dearer by the amount of the German import duty than it was at Hamburg. So far as the Government and the Liberal Party were concerned, they knew what they bad to expect and they could take care of themselves. It was obvious that the great "constructive policy" of the Unionist Party known as fiscal reform

783
was to be run on any lines, fair or unfair, if only it could be made to win. It was the horse on which the Unionist Party hoped to ride back into power. That any party should govern in this country the chief item of whose political programme was to make bread dearer by import duties was in his view a great danger to the State, and must entail misery and suffering on the very poorest of our poor people, and it was time for those who held those views to defend them in the House of Commons. He had raised the question with the hope of preventing the insidious creeping into their political industrial and economic systems of those dangerous heresies promulgated by the Unionist Party, and he respectfully asked the House of Commons to accept his Resolution.
COLONEL SEELYseconded the Resolution. He said the first thing that occurred to his mind was a sense of poignant regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whose name was bound up with what he believed to be the right and just cause of tariff reform, was not present with his clear mind and pregnant phrase to illuminate the debate. It was well that hon. Gentlemen opposite had thought fit to meet, fairly and squarely, this question as one not to be talked out, but divided upon. Perhaps it would be well, at the outset, for both sides to go as far as they could go in agreement. He thought they were all agreed upon this general proposition, that the imposition of a tax upon any commodity—in this case, wheat—could not conceivably tend to increase the world's production, but must, on the contrary, tend in some degree to reduce the production and to increase scarcity of that commodity. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Surely it was inconceivable that the imposition of a tax on any commodity could increase the world's production of that commodity. No doubt the reply of the Opposition to the Motion would be two-fold. First, they would say that, since taxes or tolls were necessary, there was no more harm in taxing bread than in taxing tea, sugar, or alcohol. To that assertion the Liberal Party advanced this frank denial—all taxes were bad, but a bread tax was the worst, because it bore most hardly upon
784
those least able to bear it, the poor, to whom bread—being the cheapest of all commodities—was the main article of food. The second answer of the Opposition would probably be that, in point of fact, no toll would be levied upon bread; in other words, the British Empire was self-sufficient to provide supplies for the requirements of these islands. Would the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire tell the House how long he thought it would take for a quarter of the home supply to become the whole under 2s. or any other tax on corn? It was obvious that any tax which the right hon. Gentleman dared to name would take twenty or thirty years before the whole supply of the British Empire was produced in the Empire itself in good and bad years. Last year had been a bad year in certain parts of the globe as well as in the United Kingdom. The total amount of wheat available for export from British Possessions last year was 15,000,000 quarters, and that amount reached these shores. In the year that the House was now considering the amount to be expected was between 3,000,000 quarters and 4,000,000 quarters only. The Tariff Reform League in 1904 bought the Sun newspaper, but he suggested to them with great respect that they could not make the sun shine at their will. They could not avoid the kind of disaster which had befallen our Colonies and possessions oversea this year and reduced the amount of wheat we imported from our possessions from 15,000,000 quarters to between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 quarters. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to multiply the amount by five so as to keep bread at its normal price and prevent scarcity? The thing was unthinkable, and it could not be done. In order that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should prove their case they would require not twenty but a hundred years; but whatever they did, however great the tax they put on imported wheat from foreign countries, they never could deal with the kind of disaster which had this year befallen the British Empire. By a fortunate Providence in other parts of the planet the sun had shone, and rain had fallen, or refrained from falling when not wanted, and so they saw that the alteration in

785
the price of wheat and bread had been small and insignificant. He could state on the authority of the largest shipper of wheat in Liverpool that, had it not been for the importation of Argentine wheat, the price of wheat must have risen 12s. and the price of bread another 2d. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would impose this corn tax to bind our Colonies to us. But if dear bread caused suffering to the poor, who were five-sixths of the people of these islands, did it not follow that whenever a tax on wheat was imposed so as to increase the price of bread, whenever the Colonial supply failed, every poor man would curse the Empire, would hate the Colonies, and would raise a clamour which few Ministers would be able to resist to have the preferential duty abolished which had caused the scarcity? Had this tax been imposed, as he understood that some would have wished, twenty or thirty years ago, they would at that very moment, instead of debating the question raised by his hon. friend, have been debating the question whether they should take off the preferential duty in order to relieve the suffering of the poor. It should be observed, for the point was not often realised, that the suffering would not only be in this country, but also in the self-governing Colonies which provided us with wheat. The thing would be double in its disaster. At the present moment in Canada, owing to the failure of the wheat crop, the Government was distributing seed wheat in order to enable the farmers to sow their crops, but were the Empire founded on a wheat tax, there would be at the same time, as hon. Members could see, an agitation here for the abolition of the tax which was causing the scarcity of bread, and there would be an agitation in the Colonies to maintain or increase the preference in order to enable them still to earn a living. Therefore, both here and in the Colonies, the moment the world's supply of wheat failed, a violent agitation would be produced in this country to abolish the preference which at that moment was most needed in our self-governing Colonies. He did not quite agree with hon. Members opposite that the omens were so favourable as they thought for their return to power. He realised that some of them might think that recent elections had
786
shown that they might shortly have the power to impose a bread tax. He did not agree with them. He thought the indications were somewhat vague. The Opposition thought that Hastings was an omen favourable to them. But not for the first time in our history a principle which England held dear had been defeated at Hastings. It was true that free trade could not stand without support, and he seconded this resolution because he believed that a tax on wheat was wrong in its conception, unjust in its incidence, and would be fatal to the well-being of the Empire.
Motion proposed, "That this House is of opinion that the recent high price of bread in this country is due to natural causes alone, and that any import duty on wheat would tend to raise the price still higher and aggravate the suffering caused by dear bread."—(Sir Joseph Leese.)
MR. GOULDINGmoved "to leave out all the words after the word 'causes,' and add the words 'and neglect of British resources, and that great advantage to the consumers in the United Kingdom would follow such a rearrangement of duties on food products as will encourage argiculture in the United Kingdom, give a preference to the Colonies, stimulate the productive power of the Empire as a whole, and so lessen our dependence on foreign countries for the necessaries of life." He said that he was glad all were now agreed that natural causes must play a part in regard to prices, but he would remind the House that the Radical Party in 1904 unanimously disputed that theory in regard to the rise in the price of sugar, though the shortage in sugar then was about 10 per cent., while that of wheat was now about 3 per cent. One of the great objects of free importation was to secure that the shortage in one part of the world should be compensated by abundance in another. This theory had clearly broken down, and was likely to do so even more frequently in the future. In the past we had depended on the United States for a large portion of our wheat supply, but any man who knew what had happened in regard to the continuous and steady reduction in

787
the import of corn to this country from the United States must realise that that source of supply could not be relied upon for ever. Further than that, we were becoming increasingly dependent for our corn supplies on countries situated near the Equator, where the chances of drought were more frequent. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] He saw no reason for laughter; was not that true; if it was not, some hon. Gentleman opposite might explain afterwards. But if that were the case it was clear that we must exercise foresight, and endeavour to secure by policy that cheapness which could not be guaranteed by free imports. In pursuit of that policy we had at our hands within the Empire what we wanted if we cared to use it, but it clearly could not be obtained by banging, barring, and bolting doors. The policy of free imports in its very adoption was a deliberate rejection of development of Imperial resources. The early preference, especially of 1843, stimulated wheat-growing in Canada, and Mr. Gladstone in a letter to Lord Cathcart, of a little later date, admitted that this was the case, and further, in the history of his life by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, it was stated that he advocated that extension to other parts of the Empire. Connected also with this policy of free imports was the abandonment of the established practice of State-aided emigration, which without any cost to the British tax-payer, provided the labour necessary for the cultivation of the virgin soil in Canada. Colonial opinion was now unanimous in favour of the readoption of preference, and experts everywhere were agreed that British Imperial resources were practically inexhaustible. By a policy of preference was not meant merely a tariff advantage on wheat alone, but a general agricultural policy, of which preference would be an essential part. Such a policy required the rearrangement of import duties on food products, without adding one fraction to the proportion borne by the working classes, yet supplying the machinery, which did not exist, and which could not be invented ad hoc, for preventing the destruction by dumping of our national industries. As to the policy of corn preference, two objections
788
were urged. First, that the small duties proposed could not be effective; secondly, if imposed, that they must lead to an early increase. In regard to the second objection it was the familiar argument of their old friend: "The thin edge of the wedge," which was used on every occasion and generally by those who had a bad case. It was to his mind always a poor and unconvincing argument. They might just as well say that because a man entered into the bonds of matrimony he was bound in the near future to become a bigamist, or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he proposed last week in his Licensing Bill that one policeman was to have the right of visiting clubs, must of a necessity go on and impose in the near future the presence of a whole division of these estimables on a club. No, each generation would act in this matter according to their own lights, and what they deemed best for the country as the occasion arose. As a Tory democrat, he had faith in the good sense of the masses whose vote would decide the question. In regard to the first point, that a 2s. duty would not be effective, they had it in a statement of the Prime Ministers of the self-governing States of the Empire that this 2s. preference was all that they wanted, that it was sufficient, and that it would give them the turn of the market. If what he had said as regarded British resources was true, it surely came to this, that within the Empire itself they would be able to provide all that they desired in regard to wheat, and therefore one of the chief objections fell to the ground. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Where?" and "How?"] Because with unexhausted resources the Empire would be able to send such a quantity of wheat into this country as practically to decide the price, and the foreigner who sent corn into the country and paid the import duty necessary for its admission—[MINISTERIAL cries of "He would not, according to your own argument"]—could not impose a price which would increase the cost in this country, but the tendency of his corn would be to decrease the price of that coming from the Empire. He preferred to deal with an example of what existed to-day rather than enter the realms of prophecy. He would take

789
the case of France, which practically produced all the corn which she required for the needs of her people. There was a duty of 12s. 2d. in France on all corn not produced in that country, but, as the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate admitted, the price of wheat in France was practically the same as it was here. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I am sorry to interrupt, but what I said was that the average price of wheat in this country in 1907 was 30s. 7d., while the average price of a similar quality of wheat in France was 40s.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is the price of to-day we want. [Ironical MINISTERIAL cheers.]
MR. GOULDINGsaid he regretted to have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, but he would take his own statement that the price of wheat to-day—the wheat used by the French people for the manufacture of their bread—was exactly the same as the price paid in this country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No," and interruption.] Was it fair-play on the part of the vast majority on the Ministerial Benches to interrupt him so? They had challenged those on that side of the House again and again to bring forward this question, and now when they did so they interrupted him in debate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "What is the price of bread in France?"] The price of bread in France to-day was practically the same as it was here. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: He does not know it.] In some places it was a fraction above, in other places it was a fraction less. Now let him ask how would this proposal benefit home agriculture. That was a fair question. [Interruption.] He must say that it was desirable to examine the whole policy as expounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Tariff Commission of Professor Hewins. That was, however, so large that it would take another night to discuss it. What he desired to point out to the House was the deplorable dependence upon foreigners we in, this country were in for the neces-
790
sities of life. That had been stated by both hon. Gentlemen, and he took their facts. But what he argued was that surely every effort should be made to make this country more self-sufficient as regarded the necessaries of life, and that it must be to our advantage to strengthen those who were for us rather than those who were against us. He was very grateful to the House for the indulgence that they had extended to him, but he could not resume his seat without a protest against the unscrupulous falsehoods made in regard to the character of the tariff reform movement and in regard to those engaged in it. Here were two recent examples—the flagrant poster: "A vote for Clive is a slice out of your loaf"; and at Leeds, the Free Trade Union: "One hundred babies have starved to death in Toronto since New Year's Day—therefore tariff reform means starvation." He also protested against the unworthy suggestions that because tariff reformers pointed out that they believed bad trade was coming and that grave disaster would follow persistence in our present policy, they were gloating over the inevitable hard times which even the President of the Board of Trade himself admitted were coming. Surely a cause must indeed be making progress when implements of this kind had to be used to try to prejudice its success amongst the very poor. In considering this question that night the minds of many hon. Members on those benches were turned to the author of this movement, and he did not think there was a man in any part of the House who did not regret the cause of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. He ventured to say that when the history of the tariff movement came to be written it would reveal no such heroic figure as that of the man well on in years, and already with the crown of success on his achievements, who undertook this gigantic task, well knowing the difficulties before him, but deriving his strength from his faith in our Imperial destiny, the urgency of the question, and the danger of delay. What wonder if after the sacrifices that he had made our countrymen throughout the universe blessed him as the great Englishman of the age, and, inspired by his example, were determined to carry this movement for the consolidation of the

791
Empire to a triumphant issue! He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
EARL WINTERTON, in, seconding the Amendment, said that the point which struck one most prominently on first looking at the Resolution was the great love of body - snatching which existed among hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they were told, not once, but on many occasions after the last general election, that tariff reform was dead and buried for ever. And yet hardly a month went by without some fresh attempt being made by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen to dig up the corpse. Sometimes it was dug up apparently with a trowel by the President of the Board of Trade and sometimes in a more rough-and-ready fashion with the homely agricultural spade as in the case of the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Resolution. At any rate, it was constantly being dug up, and it certainly was a great compliment to the advance which had been made by tariff reform in the country. But there was the second point which struck one about the Resolution, and that was the gradual shifting which had been going on now for some time—the gradual shifting of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite from the rather insecure boggy ground on which they stood at the general election on the question of food to what they now thought was firmer territory. They remembered that at the last election not merely were attacks made upon them as tariff reformers for their policy, but it was said that under free trade it could be practically guaranteed that bread would be cheaper. [Loud MINISTERIAL cries of "Quote."] He was going to do so. He had in his hands a number of leaflets and pamphlets issued by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the price of food, which documents he would not sell for their weight in gold. He had therefore plenty of quotations from every grade of Liberal opinions, from the hon. Member for North Hackney to the ultra-respectable First Commissioner of Works. The constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works were asked to "Vote for Harcourt and a big loaf for our
792
little children." History would tell whether the right hon. Gentleman's relative made the same boast at Hastings, where he had been somewhat unsuccessful. It would not be desirable for him to quote the whole of these leaflets or pamphlets at length, but he would like to refer to the specially priceless example of this kind of leaflet issued at the last election by the hon. Member for Brentford, who invited the electors to "Vote for Dr. Rutherford and free trade all round thus freeing your table of existing taxes on food. Vote for the big loaf and the cheap one." Another example, perhaps the best of all, was a leaflet issued by a Member for one of the divisions of Oxfordshire: "Remember every vote given for Sir Robert Hermon-Hodge is a vote given for the little loaf. Surely your loaf is little enough now! Look at these pictures of the loaf now and the loaf which Sir Robert Hermon-Hodge would give you." But the most amazing thing of all was hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side now pretending that at the general election they did not guarantee that food would remain cheap. For every leaflet published officially there were hundreds of similar statements made from Liberal platforms and privately to the electors in all the smaller parishes of England. He could give a case in his own division where a Liberal speaker said that it was likely that whenever the Liberal Government came into power everything would be cheaper because the Government would carry on a less ruinous system of finance than that of its predecessors. [Cheers, and ironical MINISTERIAL cheers and laughter.] He could not congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on the standard of conduct which they seemed to have adopted on this occasion. It was not necessary for him to continue to quote the leaflets which were issued at the last general election, but there was evidence that at the last elections these methods were still in vogue. Many of them on that side of the House would remember pamphlets, leaflets, and posters issued at the Mid-Devon election. They remembered in particular one of the Liberal candidates' leaflets, which ran: "The children's prayer: Give us this day our daily bread and vote for Buxton." Hon. Gentlemen opposite had pretended

793
that they had never guaranteed that the price of food would remain cheap. He therefore wanted to deal with that view for a few moments, but he did not want to continue to refer to the question of the leaflets, more especially as it would appear from something he saw in a local paper at Hastings that hon. Gentlemen opposite had adopted a fresh method of appealing to the electorate. He saw that the hon. Member for East Denbigh, speaking two nights ago, said he would not care to go to Parliament over the bodies of men and women lying drunk in public-houses. Let them go on to consider, with rather less heat if possible on the opposite side of the House, the fresh standpoint which hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken up. They had deliberately abandoned—it was not denied by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench or their supporters—the standard they took up at the last election that under free trade food could not become dearer. The hon. Member who seconded the original Resolution referred in particular to the effect which a duty had in raising the cost of an article. It had, he knew, always been laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite that any duty on wheat raised the price of bread by the amount of the duty upon it. Reference had been made to the case of Prance. When his hon. friend was speaking, he was called upon by hon. Gentlemen opposite very frequently to give some quotations of wheat prices in France. As hon. Gentlemen were anxious to have them he would be very glad to give the figures which he had at his disposal. They were taken from official Return. The mean average price of wheat last year in Paris was 41s. 1d., and in London (British wheat) 31s. 6d. There were two or three facts which had to be taken into account in connection with that. The President of the Board of Trade would not dispute that those facts existed. In the first place the comparison was not a very good one, because, whereas only about 6 per cent. of the British wheat was used in bread in the London area, the wheat sold in Paris was mainly French grain. There was also the difference that London was a port and Paris an inland town with a long railway system. There was, too, another
794
fact, and that was that the majority of the wheat used for bread-making purposes in London was imported wheat for which the price was higher than for British wheat. Probably, if they compared the prices of wheat in the London area with the prices in Paris for Australian and Argentine wheat, if the figures were available, the difference between the two quotations would be found to be considerably less. He could give the House the quotations for two months of the present year of prices in Paris, and in Mark Lane, in one case for Argentine, and in the other for Australian wheat. In Paris up to the end of February the price of Argentine wheat was 38s., and in Mark Lane 39s. 10d. In Paris Australian wheat was 41s, and in Mark Lane it was 44s. He was anxious to give the House some statistics which perhaps might be of more interest. Lately, for medical reasons, he had spent a short holiday in the South of France, and while there he took the opportunity of comparing the prices of commodities there with the prices in his own constituency. In the case of bread, the price of the kilogramme loaf for the week ending 23rd February was 35 centimes in the district round Biarritz, and the price of the 2 lb. loaf in his own constituency of Horsham during the same week was 3¼d. These figures were somewhat involved, but the actual comparison worked out at 3¼d. per 2 lb. loaf in Horsham, and 3·6d per 2 lb. loaf in that district of France. At the same time the price of wheat there was 38s. 5d., and at Horsham 33s. 11d. A further comparison which he undertook in those two districts came out in this way. Whereas bread was practically the same, wheat, milk, and coffee were cheaper, and tea and sugar were somewhat dearer. But on the basis of the President of the Board of Trade's Budget, of the amount which an English householder would require for the household, the comparison worked out as follows: France, 212 pennies per week; Horsham, 209. If tea was eliminated for the comparison, it worked out at 10d. in favour of France. The point he thought they were entitled to make was that they had been grossly and unfairly attacked by hon. Gentlemen opposite over this, question. It

795
had been shown on many occasions that the cost of living in protectionist countries on a system far different from any that had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, was very slightly, if any, higher than here. They were, therefore, entitled to protest against the continued issue of pamphlets and the continued use of arguments, some of which had been used that night by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and against the attempt to introduce prejudice into the question by pretending that everybody in protectionist countries was in a state of poverty and living on black bread and horse sausages. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for Accrington to the question of the capabilities of Canada, for the supply of wheat to this country and to the Empire, and he was surprised that the mover and seconder of the Resolution should have expressed so much doubt that the Empire would be able in a comparatively short time to supply all its own needs in wheat. He thought the mover of the Resolution had stated that no one would contend that in the lifetime of anyone in this House, or for a very long time, Canada would be able to supply all our needs. It was laid down by the most competent authorities in Canada that within a period of ten to twenty years Canada alone, if she continued at her present rate of progress, would be able to supply all the wheat we required.
COLONEL SEELY. With bad harvests like this year?
EARL WINTERTONsaid that no one would pretend that we should rely on Canada alone, but his point was that the normal wheat supply of Canada within twenty years, at the present rate of progress, would be sufficient for our needs. We should have Australia and India to fall back upon. An hon. Gentleman had asked how preference would help to bring that about. The one thing needed to make Canada the greatest wheat producing country in the world was more capital and more men. Though she was obtaining more men and more capital she was not doing so nearly as fast as the Cana-
796
dians would like to see or as the country was capable of doing. There was not the slightest doubt that preference to Canada would enormously stimulate wheat growing and tempt an enormous amount of capital and men over the border of the United States. For years the process had been going on and men and money had been sent over to farm the western portion of Canada, and if it was stimulated he had not the least doubt that in twenty years Canada alone would be capable of supplying the whole of the wheat required for this country. Speaking at the Colonial Conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was the policy of His Majesty's Government, as it had been of this country, to maintain unimpaired in quantity and quality and unenhanced in price the food of our people. Did he now pretend that that position was assured? Had he read the Blue-book issued three years ago by the Royal Commission which inquired into food supply in time of war? No one who had read that Blue-book or had lived through the last few months could pretend that the position the right hon. Gentleman had laid down was assured. The way to assure that position which he hoped everybody on both sides was anxious to see assured was by developing the resources within our own Empire. No one who was conversant with Canada, could deny that we had there a priceless asset for carrying out that policy. The President of the Board of Trade, though opposed to preference, was strongly in favour of developing such things as transport within the British Empire. Did the House realise in what a favourable position we were as regarded the transport of wheat from Canada? We had the most magnificent transport that could possibly be imagined. The system of the Canadian Pacific Railway was if anything superior to the railways of other wheat producing countries such as America. If there was any way to assure our wheat supply in time of war it could only be done by developing the Empire and keeping a sufficiently" strong Navy to protect the trade routes. The real objection which hon. Members opposite felt to preference was not so much hostility to duties,

797
as opposition to the Colonial idea and the Colonial spirit. They knew that the whole Party, from the Prime Minister to the Member for Salford, were permeated more or lees with the spirit of universal brotherhood, and cosmopolitanism, and it was because hon. Gentlemen knew that if preference was adopted, their schemes of universal brotherhood were put off for another thousand years that the Liberal Party had always shown opposition to it. The Government would find that the attitude they had taken up against Preference would be as much a millstone about their necks as their subservience to Gentlemen below the Gangway had been. They, on that side of the House, rejoiced from a party point of view that their opponents had taken up this attitude, but from a national point of view they regretted that anybody should be opposed to preference and to the Imperial spirit.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out all the words after the word causes, and add the words and neglect of British resources, and that great advantage to the consumers in the United Kingdom would follow such a rearrangement of duties on food products as will encourage agriculture in the United Kingdom, give a preference to the Colonies, stimulate the productive power of the Empire as a whole, and so lessen our dependence on Foreign countries for the necessaries of life—(Mr. Goulding) instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ESSEXsaid he would like to ask the mover of the Amendment one or two questions. He represented thousands of men whose earnings did not exceed from 11s to 12s a week. He wanted to ask the hon. Member how he could encourage agriculture and yet benefit the consumer. He had followed the hon. Member as closely as he possibly could through every word of his speech. He was glad in one sense to see him there, and men like him who were the representative priests of this heresy. They wanted them on the floor of the House that they could nail them down to statements they made outside.
798
The hon. Member did not stick at all to his Amendment and did not explain how he proposed to reconcile these two self-contradictory things. He took it that agriculture could only be encouraged by the lowering of rents or wages or by the increased price of its products. If they were going to increase the prices how were they going to benefit the consumer? He had a lot of other questions he wanted to ask, but he thought these one or two might do. He had a question to put to the hon. Member for Gravesend who suggested in hi? Amendment on the Paper that if the preference on Colonial wheat was excessive in amount they would find it out in the heightened price of bread. But who was going to pay it if it was a small tax? The hon. Gentleman hoped possibly that it would be disguised in the fluctuations of the market rate. If they did not get it out of the consumer they had to take it out of the pockets of the miller or the dealer in wheat on the baker. The noble Lord opposite had urged the necessity of stimulating Colonial produce. The growing of wheat was a matter of population as well as of area. If in anything like a short number of years, the whole of the wheat supply was to be grown within the British Empire without the contribution of India, nearly 74,000,000 cwt. more would have to be grown. If 11,250,000 of the white population of the British Empire to-day produced 23,000,000 quarters, how many more millions of white people would it require to produce a given proportion of the 74,000,000 cwts. required? Hon. Gentlemen did not wish them to come from foreign peoples with other national ideals and sympathies. Would they bring them from America or from Southern Europe or Scandinavia, for, if they did, what would be done for the consolidation of the British Empire? The hon. Member for Worcester had contended that the same economic generalisation which applied to corn applied with still greater-force to import duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, and the rest. He would be glad to see all indirect taxes done away with, and hoped yet to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that in his ideal system of taxation the e would have no place; but he would point out that all these products were grown abroad and

799
the whole amount obtained from them minus the small amount necessary for collection, passed into the Exchequer. It should not be overlooked that fifty or sixty loaves out of every 100 consumed by the Britisher were made from foreign wheat and as it bad been proved by the experience of Germany and France that to tax any portion of the bread stuffs of a country was certain to bring about an all round heightening of the price of all the bread stuffs home grown and other, used in such a country, it followed that although we only levied a tax on the foreign flour and grain all our bread would cost us more. Moreover, while the Exchequer would gain the tax paid upon foreign corn and flour, the added price on the home and Colonial supplies would go from the consumer entirely into private pockets. Tariff reform was tariff robbery and nothing else. Furthermore there was a question he would like to ask the newly elected Member for South Hereford. When he said in his election address that a tax on wheat would be paid by the foreigner and help to neutralise the lessening or removal of present duties on tea and other articles, could he prove that taxes in either case did not fall on the consumers? These were points he would like to see cleared up in a debate of this kind, because he was searching after truth in this matter.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has engaged himself in the harmless and interesting occupation of putting questions to my hon. friends, some of whom have already spoken and cannot, therefore, rise to answer and others will be shut out by the exigencies of debate. I can assure the seconder of the Motion and others that on this side of the House we are most anxious for a full discussion. I may be permitted to say that when I rose immediately after my two hon. friends, I thought it would be for the convenience of the right
800
hon. Gentleman opposite who would follow. On this side of the House we want not only a debate but a vote. A further word of a personal nature will not be impertinent. It is impossible to listen to the words of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division in allusion to my relative without being touched by the general feeling of regret that one who never shrank from meeting his opponents nor hesitated to put his own views clearly forward cannot be present on the occasion. I rejoice that the hon. Gentleman has been successful in moving his Motion. His object, no doubt, is to put the Party on this side of the House into the dock and arraign them for their conduct. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman and his friends are satisfied; I can assure him that the Party whom he has sought to arraign are satisfied. It sometimes happens that unfortunate innocent persons are arraigned, but when the case comes on for investigation the parties quickly change places, and the accuser takes the position he designed for another, in the dock first and elsewhere afterwards. I cannot help thinking that it would have been better for the hon. Gentleman to have cleared the beam from his own eye before he became so much concerned with the motes which he found in ours. The terms of the Motion are divided into two parts, but practically the whole of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was devoted to one part only. The whole of his argument was addressed to the question of natural causes, and was a condemnation as severe as could be uttered of the attitude of himself and his friends who sat on the Opposition Benches a few years ago, when they accused the late Government of the responsibility for the rise in the price of sugar which was due, and which was known to everybody who cared to look at the facts to be due, to shortage of crop in Germany and elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends wish to bring on to the floor of the House

801
he issues tried at the by-elections in the country where verdicts have been given against them, if they wish to come to the House as to a Court of Appeal—which it is not; the country is the appellate Court from the House—why did he not frame his Resolution so as to put on the Notice Paper the contention advanced in the country at the last election? They did not say mildly in the words of the hon. Baronet that any import duty would tend to raise the price of food. They said they stood for cheap food. My noble friend who seconded the Amendment quoted a Bill which was issued by the First Commissioner of Works asking the electors to "Vote for Harcourt and a big loaf for our little children." Of course, the First Commissioner of Works did not stand alone in issuing that Bill. The hon. Member for North Paddington takes a great interest in this question. In his election address he said—
"The issue, it should be remembered, is free trade or protection, cheap food or dear food."
MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: As the right hon. Gentleman has done me the honour to quote from my election address, I must ask him to read the whole of the part in which I referred to the taxes which he seeks to impose.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have quoted enough for my purpose, which is to get at the expectations which the hon. Gentleman raised in the minds of his constituents. He said the question was cheap food or dear food, just as other Members said "big loaf or little loaf." Why does the Motion not say that the Liberal Government have given the big loaf or cheap food? Because it is not true. Because that which they said at election times is not only not true, but so -absurdly and palpably false that the hon. Member dare not put it before the House. That is the first comment I want to make. When the hon. Member professes to bring
802
before the House of Commons for trial here as between the two sides the statements made at elections he does not dare to put on record on the Paper of the House the statement to which hon. Members owed in large part their majority. [An HON. MEMBER: Chinese slavery.] That does not concern the question before the House, but I am obliged for the reminder. The "terminological inexactitudes" in which hon. Gentlemen opposite indulged were not confined to one question only. They ranged over the whole political field, and what they are suffering from, and the reason why they come whining to this House to-night, is that those whom they duped by those misleading statements are now finding out the mistake they made and at every opportunity that they have are turning against hon. Gentleman opposite, and showing that they will not forget nor forgive the broken promises, the misleading statements, the false accounts of what they would do and could do, by which they won the last general election. These gentlemen come here to-night as the guardians of public morality at election times to set up a lofty standard of what may and may not be said. Are they any better to-day than they were at the general election? They cannot talk about the big loaf, because it is not here. It is gone. But they are ready to talk about it the moment that the price of bread falls. My hon. friend the Member for Worcester spoke about the Worcester election. He did not mention the Bill, "A vote for Goulding means protection; a vote for protection means horseflesh and rye bread." [Cheers.] Are hon. Members not ashamed to cheer falsehoods of that kind, and at the same moment to complain that they are unfairly treated in election literature? I do not think the hon. Baronet was any more in a position to raise a question of misstatements at recent by-elections than the man who lives in a glass house is in a position to throw stones with safety. Were misstatements made? What

803
is the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the effect of these duties? My object, at any rate, is to repeat the statements I have made outside and to bring to the test here statements by which hon. Gentlemen won their seats. I am entitled to do so, and it is relevant to the Motion to repeat them. What is the view which hon. Gentlemen opposite take of their action in regard to these duties? Is it that they are really accurate and that they do not merely indulge in the display of terminological inexactitudes? Their contention, often repeated in the country, but not put into the Motion, is that a duty would raise the price of the commodity taxed by the full amount of the duty, and generally by something more. (Cheers.) There is a little hesitation in that cheer. The wiser ones shake their heads: but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that he advanced the view again and again that the tax would raise the cost of the commodity by the amount of the tax and probably a little more.
MR. ASQUITH: Yes, in the long run.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I say that as a general statement that is not true. It is based on the assumption that what is called the world's price of a commodity is one and the same the whole world over at any given time. It is a beautiful theory, but the facts are against it. The price of a commodity is not the same all the world over at the same moment. All sorts of conditions and circumstances, local and general, affect the price. I have prepared a return of the average price of wheat for the first and second six months of each year for a series of years. From that I will give one quotation. In the first half of the year 1901 the average price of wheat in Liverpool was 134s. per ton, and in the same period the average price at Antwerp was 129s., Mannheim, 139·4s.,
804
and at Hamburg was 130·6s. per ton. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Freight."] Freight will not explain the difference between Liverpool and Hamburg. It shows the untrustworthiness of the world's price upon which hon. Members opposite have so confidently based their calculations. The effect of a duty charged upon a commodity depends upon whether the whole of that commodity consumed in the country is taxed or not, and, if not, upon the proportion of the supply coming in from elsewhere. Take the tea duty. Except in unusual circumstances the whole of the cost of the tax must full upon the consumer, because no part of the commodity comes in duty free. But where a portion of the supply comes in duty free, then the whole of the cost of the duty will not fall upon the consumer, and we may safely add that the amount which is paid by the consumer will bear the same proportion to the amount of the supply that is taxed as to the amount that is free, and that destroys the whole case of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even free traders dispute the view advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the effect of duty on price. I wish they would read their own literature. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the month of January in the House quoted certain corn figures which I venture to say were misleading. He illustrated the doctrine well known to economists that the duty not merely raised the prices to the consumer to the amount of the duty but by something more. I recommend him to read an extract from the Free Trader, the organ, I believe, of the Cobden Club. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Well, Free Trade Union, which says that that is the ordinary free trade explanation, but that it is not economically sound to say that the consumer can only pay the entire duty in cases where the whole supply of a commodity is imported. The soundness of my contention that the effect of a duty on prices is governed

805
largely by the free portion of the supply is seen in the French figures already-quoted. It is not a fair test to take the Gazette prices of British wheat, for it is only about 10 per cent. of our whole consumption. The prices are lower than the bulk of the wheat that goes to the making of our bread, probably Is. 6d less, as the Minister for the Board of Agriculture has admitted. In October, November, and December the Gazette prices here were 35s 3d, 36s 6d, and 35s 6d for British wheat. The Liverpool prices were 39s 6d, 38s 5d, and 37s 1d. The official average at Paris was 30s 3d and 38s 5d What, then, becomes of the doctrine that the consumer pays the whole of the duty? In two cases out of three, Paris is getting corn cheaper than we are getting it, despite the import duty in France. The hon. Baronet attempted to get rid of the French comparisons on the ground that the French produce nearly the whole of their wheat for themselves. Is that any answer? We are not asking what the United Kingdom can produce, we are asking what the British Empire can produce. An untaxed supply of wheat can be derived from within the British Empire; and as to the men necessary, we can keep our men under the flag, instead of sending them to the United States of America. We can keep the necessary men under the flag rather than send them to foreign countries, and we can keep our capital here rather than send it abroad, because we can get from the Empire large supplies of wheat. That brings me to the charge, if charge it is, that I have to make against the Government. I say that the rise in the price of bread is not an accident, but is due to a shortage of supply; and that the only way to guard against the recur-
806
rence of such accidents is to stimulate-and increase the wheat production of the Empire. This country has it in its power to do this by preference. The complaint against the Government is not that they have produced this shortage by anything they have done, but that they have refused to do anything to protect the country against its recurrence. The hon. and gallant Member for Abercromby, by the repetition of an argument which he puts into two forms in his speech, asks me by name to assent to the proposition that the imposition of a tax must tend to reduce production, or he said the imposition of a tax could not increase production. I join issue with the hon. Member, and will give him an instance to the contrary. What about the output of steel and iron in the United States, where protective taxation has increased not only American production but the world's supply? By an extension of preference to our Colonies we may call into existence new sources of supply of wheat, and so-increase the world's supply, and especially our own. That is one of the main, objects of tariff reformers, and it is so clearly understood to be so, and it is so-certain that the object will be obtained, that it is made a charge against tariff reform by Lord Rosebery and others. Lord Rosebery said, when he talked to-farmers on this subject, that this 2s duty would stimulate colonial production, and that wheat would not rise, but would fall. That is our case, and, in reply to the hon. Member, I will say that I have never pretended that the farmers will derive any advantage from the 2s duty on wheat. I repudiate in the strongest possible terms the charge which hon. Gentlemen have tried to-fasten upon us that we are endeavouring

807
to raise the price of bread, or that we would raise it, and I throw back on them the accusation of dishonesty which they have chosen to introduce into the House and of which their own election literature condemns them.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): We have had a very interesting discussion, and rather a lively one, which shows that, after all, this is really a live issue. I am very glad that it should be discussed on the floor of the House, where statements can be made and either proved or disproved. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated that my hon. and learned friend attempted to put him and his Party in the dock. That is not the object of the Resolution. It is, rather, to clear the Liberal Party of accusations which are made in the country, but which hon. Member opposite have not the courage to make here to our face. The charge is made against the Government that they have been responsible for the increase in the price of food, fuel, clothing. Surely that is a very serious charge to bring against a Government; and I should have thought that one of the first duties of the Party in opposition would have been to arraign the Government for a policy that has brought home such mischief to every man, woman, and child in the country. The Address was allowed to pass, and not a word about it. Tuesday and Wednesday evenings passed, and no balloting—[OPPOSITION cries of "No luck"]—and the charge is not brought even now. At any rate, I congratulate my hon. friend on one result of the discussion, and that is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have absolved the Government from all responsibility for the weather.
808
Reference has been made to charges which we brought about either Chinese labour or sugar. They were all brought on the floor of this House. I was a Member of the House at the time, and I remember that we constantly exhausted every Parliamentary resource in order to get a debate on those two topics.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that we were responsible for the weather and sugar?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has quite naturally joined his Party on this subject rather late, and he is, therefore, not quite in touch with what has been going on. I am simply answering an accusation that we have made charges about Chinese labour and sugar, and my reply is that we made those charges on the floor of the House. My only complaint is that it has been left to us to seek that opportunity to call upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to justify the charges they have made on every platform in the country. There is one thing which, I think, is more interesting even than the discussion, and that is the choice made by the Opposition of the Amendment on which they are going to challenge a division. I would like the House to look at the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Gravesend, who is now an old and distinguished Parliamentary hand, and who is in the habit of addressing urban and industrial audiences, found it necessary to dwell on the fact that any duty which would be imposed upon wheat would be a small one. The hon. Member is first on the Order Paper, and therefore, in the natural course of things, would be called first. ["No, no."] He is brushed aside. ["No."]
MR. GOULDING: I handed in my notice last Friday—the very first notice.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the statement fully, but I want to point out the choice that has been made of Amendments. There is a very serious difference. The hon. Member for Gravesend said—
"Well, this duty does not matter; after all, it is only a small one."
But the Party opposite are getting bolder and would have none of it. "No," they said, "it must be a duty which will develop agriculture in this country." The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said it would not affect the price of wheat in this country, so that the farmer here would not benefit by it. It was to benefit, not England, but Assiniboia; the right hon. Gentleman was thinking not of Mid Devon, but of Saskatchewan. That is the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman places on this Amendment. It is not the development of agriculture here but in Australia, Canada, India, and elsewhere. I am glad to have that interpretation; but the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the Amendment, because the hon. Member for Worcester wants to develop agriculture in the United Kingdom. But he knows perfectly well that the growing of wheat in the United Kingdom became unprofitable from the moment that the price dropped under 40s a quarter. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon present. I see he is also satisfied that we are not responsible for the dear bread. He has found something else which is much better. He gives up bread, and now he says we are responsible for foot-and-mouth disease. According to the Tariff
810
Reform Commission, or at any rate according to the statistics of the Board of Agriculture, the cultivation of wheat went down in this country from the moment the price fell below 40s I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks any farmer will break up his grass lands for 2s a quarter on corn.
MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think corn only includes wheat, but it also includes barley and oats, which is chiefly grown here.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not forget it at all, because if we put a duty on corn we shall soon know that there are-other kinds of grain included, as Germany found, for instance, that there is rye. I am sorry I cannot answer all the points raised, but there are one or two things I should like to say. One is with regard to France. France has played a great part in this discussion, especially in the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What has happened in France? There has just been a very successful harvest. The result of it has been that France is in the position of not being under the necessity of importing. Really France could export. How long has France been in that position? Can hon. Gentlemen opposite point out a single year during the last ten years when France has been in that position? That, of course, is our answer. You are dependent entirely upon the weather in France or in any particular area from, which you draw your wheat if you are protectionist, and if you have bad weather there, up goes wheat. I have got the prices of wheat in France since 1885, and I cannot not find a single year

811
in which the price of wheat in France has not been from 6s to 10s above the price of wheat in this country. France has not had a year like this for the last twenty years. The advantage of free trade is that we are not dependent upon a mere accident of that kind, which only occurs once in twenty years. People cannot live for nineteen years without bread in the hope that they may have a good harvest when the twentieth year arrives. Something has been said about imported wheat being cheaper in France. Hon. Members ought to know the reason. The real reason is that it is wheat for re-export; it is practically in bond. The duty is paid, but if wheat is re-exported there is a drawback. If that wheat is used for consumption in France, up goes the price by the duty. That is what hon. Members really ought to have known.
EARL WINTERTON: That does not apply to Biarritz.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no time to follow the researches of the noble
Lord in the south of France. Let E give one figure. The price of bread London is 5½d. the 4 lb. loaf; it is 6½ in Paris. That is a difference of 1d. c the 4 lb. loaf, in spite of the good harvest in France. If I had time to go into it, Germany is the best case of all. Germany is a country with a teeming population. Germany has now not merely to pay 11s duty on all wheat that is imported but also 11s duty on her home-grow wheat. That ought to be a sufficient warning to us. The right hon. Gentleman opposite got very angry, because in some pamphlets we said this meant starvation and I really think I could not do better in conclusion than by quoting the were of the right hon. Gentleman's relative—
"If you are going to tax the bread of the people, you will affect every household in the land, and you will throw back the working class of this country to the starvation wages and to the destitution from which Mr. Gladstone an Sir Robert Peel have relieved them."
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 30.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Byles, William Pollard

Acland, Francis Duke

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cameron, Robert

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beale, W. P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Beauchamp, E.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Agnew, George William

Beck, A. Cecil

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bell, Richard

Chance, Frederick William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bennett, E. N.

Cleland, J. W.

Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clough, William

Astbury, John Meir

Black, Arthur W.

Clynes, J. R.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bowerman, C. W.

Collins. Stephen (Lambeth

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury. E.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Branch, James

Cooper, G. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Barker, John

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

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barnard, E. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barnes, G. N.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Cowan, W. H.

Cox, Harold

Jackson, R. S.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jardine, Sir J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pollard, Dr.

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

Curran, Peter Francis

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William(Carnarvonahire)

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jowett, F. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Daves, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies Timothy (Fulham)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Walter ussell (Searboro'

Davies, W. Howel (Bristol, S.)

Kelley, George D.

Rees, J. D.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rendall, Athelstan

Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duckworth, James

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Robinson, S.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Erskine, David C.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rose, Charles Day

Essex, R. W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rowlands, J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Runciman, Walter

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Russell. T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Fiennes. Hon. Eustace

Lough, Thomas

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lupton, Arnold

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under Lyne

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seaverns, J. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seddon, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Seely, Colonel

Furness, Sir Christopher

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

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

Gill, A. H.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Callum, John M.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Glover, Thomas

M'Crae, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gooch, George Peabody

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Grant, Corrie

M'Micking, Major G.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Bramptson

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hall, Frederick

Massie, J.

Summerbell, T.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Menzies, Walter

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Middlebrook, William

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Hart-Davies, T.

Mond, A.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, E. S.

Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montgomery, H. G.

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

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Toulmin, George

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrell, Philip

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morse, L. L.

Verney, F. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wadsworth, J.

Henry, Charles S.

Myer. Horatio

Walsh, Stephen

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

Napier, T. B.

Walters, John Tudor

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Wardle, George J.

Hodge, John

Nicholson, Charles H. (Doncast'r

Waring, Walter

Holland, Sir William Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

Holt, Richard Durning

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Watt, Henry A.

Hudson, Walter

Partington, Oswald

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Idris, T. H. W.

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Illingworth, Percy H.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

814

815

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

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

Pease.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Williamson, A.

Wodehouse, Lord

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Baldwin, Stanley

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

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

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gretton, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George B.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Heaton, John Henniker

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Helmsley, Viscount

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thomson, W. Mtchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hunt, Rowland

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

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

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Clark, George Smith (Belfast, W.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Winterton, Earl

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Viscount Valentia.

Darlymple, Viscount

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Doughty, Sir George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Main Question again proposed.
Debate arising.
And, if being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
Postponed Proceeding on Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," resumed.
Question again proposed.
And, objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SUSPENSION OF THE ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE.
Mr. GEORGE WHITELEYgave notice to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule for to-morrow.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.